Congruence between Positioning and Brand ...

Congruence between Positioning and Brand Advertising

CHARLES BLANKSON

The lack of comprehensive strategic positioning models capable of being employed by

University of North

managers and advertising executives has given the impetus for this research. This

Texas [email protected]

study deals with the actual process of managing the concept of positioning. Using multiple research methodology, a conceptual positioning framework that is the

STAVROS P. KALAFATIS Kingston University Business School [email protected]

composite of two extant positioning frameworks is formulated. The framework is subsequently operationalized in plastic card organizations (i.e., credit card, charge card, store card, and debit card industries). From the findings, this article puts forward managerial guidelines and, in the process, reveals that plastic card organizations pursue two key positioning aims (profit and market share; profit and status) and, to an extent, "profit and cobranding." The research also uncovers two main positioning objectives, namely, "functional" and "symbolic" employed by plastic card brands. Furthermore, the study finds that six card brands are managed within two broad life cycle stages (fortification and membership) while "deposition" and "fallow" are pursued by two card brands. "The Brand Name" strategy is the most popular positioning strategy utilized in the study setting. Discussion and managerial guidelines, conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Review of the literature shows growing interest and activities attached to the concept of positioning (Aaker and Shansby, 1982; Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra, 1999; Crawford, 1985; Dillon, Domzal, and Madden, 1986; Hooley and Greenley, 2005; Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991; Prince, 1990). The subject is considered as one of the key elements of modern marketing management (Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy, 1998; Kotler, 2000; Porter, 1996) and the foundation upon which marketing communications plans are formulated (Fill, 1999; Ries and Trout, 1986; Rossiter and Percy, 1997). Despite the importance ascribed to positioning, there appears to be a paucity of documented strategic positioning models that provide a compreDOI: 10.2501/S0021849907070080

hensive insight into the related activities concerning the operationalization of positioning (Rigger, 1995; Rossiter and Percy, 1997). The latter is exacerbated by the lack of managerial guidelines as to the management of positioning activities (Rigger, 1995). While attempts have been made by scholars to correct the omission, these have been conceptual and offer no operational and managerial guidelines (see Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy, 1998; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986), despite the reported difficulties encountered in the application of the concept by managers and advertising executives (Piercy, 2005). As a result, the difficulties surrounding the application of the concept by managers and advertising executives (Rossiter and Percy, 1997; Schultz, 2006) that emanate from the

March 2 0 0 7 JOURIIIIL OF HDOEBTISIHG RESEBBCH 7 9

CONGRUENCE BETWEEN POSITIONING AND BRAND ADVERTISING

Despite the importance ascribed to positioning, there appears to be a paucity of documented strategic positioning modeis that provide a comprehensive insight into the related activities concerning the operationaiization of positioning.

lack of empirically grounded and coherent strategic positioning models has, no doubt, created apprehension about the concept in the literature (Pollay, 1985). Essentially, the purpose of this study is to propose and then operationalize a comprehensive strategic positioning framework that incorporates the various decisions and activities associated with the management/operationalization of positioning and the subsequent generation of managerial guidelines (see Levitt, 2002; Porter, 1996). The former is the composite of two adopted extant positioning frameworks (i.e.. Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986: Brand Concept Image Management; Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy, 1998: Generic Positioning Framework). More specifically, the main objectives of this research include: 1. the delineation of the decisions and activities associated with strategic positioning, 2. the construction of a composite strategic positioning framework that incorporates the above decisions and activities, 3. the operationalization of the proposed framework within the plastic card services domain, and 4. the proposition of managerial guidelines. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Arnott (1992, 1993) writes that positioning is concerned with the attempt to mod-

ify the tangible characteristics and the intangible perceptions of a marketable offering in relation to the competition. He goes on (Arnott, 1992, pp. 111-14) to formally define positioning as: "... the deliberate, proactive, iterative process of defining, measuring, modifying, and monitoring consumer perceptions of a marketable offering...." According to the author, the application of positioning involves certain related activities, i.e., defining the dimensions of a particular perceptual space that adequately represents the target audience's perceptions; measuring objects locations within that space and modifying actual characteristics of the object and perceptions of the target audience via marketing communications strategies. We adopt Arnott's (1992,1993) definition and take it further by examining how positioning can be operationalized. Review of the extant literature identified only two formally expressed strategically based conceptual positioning frameworks, namely. Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis's (1986) Brand Concept Image Management (BCM) and the Generic Positioning Framework (GPF) proposed by Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy (1998). The two frameworks were adopted and then combined/amalgamated to form the basis of the composite strategic positioning framework (Blankson and Kalafatis, 2001, 2003; Blankson, Kalafatis, and LongTolbert, 2002). Following critical review of

8 0 JDURORL or HOUERTISIflO REEEflRCH March 2 0 0 7

BCM and GPF, one can infer that the two frameworks lack operationalization guidelines and diagnostic powers. More specifically, the two frameworks have overlooked the issue of positioning over time (Porter, 1996). The latter concerns overall positioning aim of management/firm, the determination of whether objectives are met, the management of products/services/ brands through their life cycle stages (see Kermanshah, 1997), and the process of operationalization of the frameworks. This omission in the literature gave the impetus for this research. The Composite Strategic Positioning Modei

The Composite Strategic Positioning Framework attempts tc encapsulate the proposition put forward by Arnott (1992, 1993) and Levitt (2002) who suggest that the management of positioning is an iterative process that is embarked upon through communication tactics and strategies (see also, Markides, 1997; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). Thus, the long-term perspective underpinning the management of the concept of positioning must take into account issues regarding: • specification of positioning aim(s), setting of positioning objectives (s), and identification of appropriate positioning strategies to support the defined objectives; • development of advertising and other marketing communication messages capable of delivering the desired message; and • finally, managing the related activities over the life cycle stages of the offering. As one can see from Figure 1, the proposed framework comprises three main phases that reflect a sequential process in the decisions and activities associated with strategic positioning. These include


LCSl

LCS2

LCS3

LCS4

LCS5

LCS6

LCS7

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Strategy 6 Strategy 7 Strategy 8 Stage (I) Phase 1 Aim

Phase 2 Objectives

S t a g e (ii)

Phase 3 Implementation and Monitoring

Figure 1 The Composite Strategic Positioning Model (CPM)

defining the overall positioning aim (phase 1), moving on to the specification of positioning objectives (phase 2), translating these objectives into positioning strategies (phase 3-i), and the implementation and monitoring phase, which is the management of the process over the life cycle of the offering (s) (phase 3-ii). Each of these is debated in turn. Phase 1: Defining the positioning aim(s). There is evidence in the literature that strongly supports the identification of a positioning aim as the first key stage in the systematic process of the management of the concept of positioning (e.g., McKenna, 1986; Myers, 1996; Rigger, 1995). In other words, it can be inferred that based on analysis of its competitive advantages, its marketing capabilities as well as the environment, a firm should formulate its broad positioning aim (Hooley and Greenley, 2005; Nylen, 1990). This should be the starting point that guides

the direction or foundation of positioning decisions at subsequent phases. Phase 2: Setting positioning objective(s). Once the aim is determined, this must be translated into congruent objective (s) (see Berry, 1982; Levitt, 1986; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986) that individually or collectively influence the positioning strategies to be adopted. There is a large body of work in the literature that supports positioning objectives as an important element in the operationalization of the positioning concept (see for example, Batra, Myers, and Aaker, 1996; Doyle and Saunders, 1985). Positioning objectives could be formulated in the pursuit of low cost or high quality offering (Berry, 1982; McKenna, 1986) and must be in line with resources (Hooley and Greenley, 2005; Hooley, Greenley, Fahy, and Cadogan, 2001; Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy, 1998; Nylen, 1990; Porter, 1996) and profitability of segments (Fill, 1999; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986).

Phase 3: Implementation and monitoring of positioning strategy(ies). The implementation and monitoring phase is the final part of the proposed framework and is subdivided into two stages: Stage I (Implementation). Once the objec-

tives have been set, decisions regarding the appropriate strategy or strategies that need to be pursued to achieve the positioning objective must be made. However, given the criticisms of existing typologies of positioning strategies (e.g., Arnott, 1992; Crawford, 1985; Easingwood and Mahajan, 1989) due to their lack of consumer perspectives (Kalafatis, Tsogas, and Blankson, 2000), it was decided to adopt a newly developed and validated consumer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies (see the Appendix). The strategies are considered to reflect the basis and foundation for the advertising plan, the creative plan, and the final campaign/promotional plan (Fill,

March 2 0 0 7 JOORIIRL OF ROOERTISIRG RESERRCH 8 1


The difficulties surrounding the application of the concept of positioning by managers and advertising executives

poses, the chosen research setting is the U.K. plastic card services industry (i.e., credit card, charge card, store card, and debit card).

that emanate from the lack of empirically grounded and Sampling, data collection,

coherent strategic positioning models has, no doubt, created apprehension about the concept in the literature.

1999; Ries and Trout, 1986; Rossiter and Percy, 1997). To this end, copywriters, art directors, and photographers must be conversant with the selected positioning strategies so that they may creatively incorporate the strategies in the advertisement/promotion content. The latter may be reflected in the location, situation, casting, lighting, style, photographs, endorsers, words, and the tone used. It is suggested that the appropriate positioning strategy (ies) (see the Appendix) located on the vertical axis in the Composite Strategic Positioning Model (CPM) (see Figure 1) can be employed.

Stage IJ (Monitoring). The effectiveness of the positioning strategy(ies) pursued must be monitored vis-a-vis the stated positioning objectives along the life cycle stages (located along the horizontal axis in Figure 1) of the offering. The process of monitoring is the iterative management of the strategies within different life cycle stages to ensure the effectiveness of positioning strategies pursued (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986). In other words, marketing managers and advertising executives may decide to place (i.e., manage) an offering in a specific life cycle stage using the appropriate positioning strategy(ies) (see the Appendix). In line with Lamb and Cravens' (1990) and Porter's (1996) writings, it is asserted that to enhance the long-term survival of

the offering's position in the marketplace and consistent with the process of monitoring, over time, having taken into account the nature of the environment, marketing managers and advertising executives may decide to manage the offering in the current life cycle stage or may shift the offering into an appropriate life cycle stage (see the Appendix) as indicated in Figure 1. As noted earlier, the latter decisions and activities are iterative (Arnott, 1993; Levitt, 2002; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996) and may lead to the employment of the firm's existing positioning strategy (ies) or the adoption of other pertinent positioning strategies (see the Appendix). For the purposes of this study and based on inductive reasoning, the general explanation proposed in the life cycle stages (see Kermanshah, 1997; Zimmermann, 1982) and the product life cycle (see Harrigan and Porter, 1991; Hooley, 1995; Kotler, 2000) concepts were adapted. Consequently, we propose seven positioning life cycle stages (Primal, Consolidation, Latent, Deposition, Fortification, Membership, Fallow) (see the Appendix) in Stage II of the CPM (Figure 1).

METHODOLOGY

This research employs multiple, i.e., a triangulation, methodology (secondary data analysis, face-to-face interviews, content analysis, and survey) and is based on a cross-sectional study. For illustrative pur-

8 2 JOURimi or RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH March 2 0 0 7

and response rate

Three main populations were examined in order to discover the discrete decisions and activities related to the management/ operationaiization of positioning. Each of these is debated in turn. Executives and experts. Information about overall aim (phase 1), objectives (phase 2), and position along the life cycle stages (LCS) in phase 3 was obtained from executives and experts within the research domain. A convenience sample of executives working for the selected plastic cards (e.g., managing directors, marketing directors, marketing managers, product directors, etc.) and individuals considered as experts (e.g., advertising executives, directors of plastic card institutions, partners in consultancy firms operating in the sector, academics with expertise in plastic card research, etc.) within the U.K. plastic card sector were identified (Winkler, 1981). Company information (e.g., annual reports), dedicated directories, and academic publications comprised the sample frame. Out of the 48 executives and 33 experts contacted, 40 and 23, respectively, were interviewed. Data collection involved a combination of drop-off and pick-up survey and open-ended face-toface long interviews (McCracken, 1998).

Companies' advertising and marketing communications. The positioning strategy(ies) adopted by the selected cards [i.e., stage (i)—phase 3] was determined by content analysis (Holsti, 1969) of advertisements and promotions placed in TV, newspapers, brochures, pamphlets and


leaflets, and outdoor posters (Fill, 1999; Rossiter and Percy, 1997). Data were gathered using a combination of publicly available sources (e.g., the CTC—The Register Limited, which is a London-based organization that specializes in the recording of TV advertisements, and Saachi and Saachi Advertising Agency), newspaper cuttings of advertisements, and manual collection of brochures, pamphlets, and leaflets containing advertisements from banks and financial institutions (i.e.. Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Diners Club, Switch, and Visa Delta), and retail store outlets (i.e., Marks & Spencer and Harrods). In addition, advertisements and promotions appearing in outdoor locations (i.e., billboards, bus sides, bus shelters/stations, taxi sides, underground train stations, and companies' premises window show cases) were randomly photographed during planned and unplanned tours of London. In all, the combined efforts resulted in the collection of 319 pieces of communication that were content analyzed.

of the American Marketing Association to represent the public and Hankinson and Cowking's (1997) selection of members of the CIM. The CIM (using simple random sampling) circulated the questionnaire to 1,000 of its members. Data were collected through a selfcompletion questionnaire that requested respondents to express their views on a random selection of two of the eight selected cards matching the 30 statements/ items that comprised the adopted typology of positioning strategies (see the Appendix). A balanced research design was employed to ensure that the eight cards were covered. Following a second reminder of nonrespondents, 357 questionnaires were received yielding an effective 35 percent response rate. The usual tests of nonresponse bias (i.e., Hmited follow-ups, comparison of early and late responses, etc.; Armstrong and Overton, 1977) were carried out, and we are satisfied as to the representativeness of the resultant sample. Measurements and measures

Target group. Finally, to examine the monitoring part of the framework (i.e., whether there is congruence between what the firm is trying to achieve and the target population's perceptions), a survey with the general public was deemed necessary. However, based on pilot work that indicated a positive correlation between ability to conceptualize relative position and literacy, the members of the general public population were defined as all U.K. resident adult users of plastic cards with good level of literacy (see Spector, 1992 and Oppenheim, 1992 for justification of our sample). Following the pilot test and consultations with experts, the sample frame chosen was the list of members of the U.K. Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) (see also, Armstrong, 1991). Our choice of sample is in line with Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, and Rallapalli (1995), who used members

A review of the literature shows that with the exception of perceptual maps, there have been few attempts to operationalize elements of the positioning concept (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Consequently, following review of the literature and consultations with experts and advertising executives, specific measurements had to be developed. Positioning aim(s). Inductive reasoning was applied to the answers given by executives and experts to open-ended questions soliciting their opinions on what constitute their firms' positioning aim(s). This resulted in three positioning aims: profit and market share, profit and status, and profit and cobranding. Positioning objective(s). We adopted Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis's (1986) classifica-

tion of positioning objectives, namely, functional, symbolic, and experiential (see the Appendix). This classification was presented in the form of a nominal scale. Each of the executives and experts were then requested to indicate the main (i.e., only one) objective that best fitted the card offered by their firm or, in the case of experts, the one they were most familiar with. Positioning life cycle stages (LCS). The adoption and amalgamation of the LCS proposed by Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis (1986) and Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy (1998) and further extensions by Blankson and Kalafatis (2001, 2003) and Blankson, Kalafatis, and Long-Tolbert (2002) resulted in the following seven positioning LCSs: primal, consolidation, latent, deposition, fortification, membership, and fallow (see the Appendix for definitions). A nominal scale was used and as with the positioning objectives, the executives and experts were requested to indicate a single LCS from the list provided that best described a specific card at the time of the research. Positioning strategies. As has been mentioned earlier, in view of criticisms leveled against extant conceptual and managerially driven typologies of positioning strategies (Kalafatis, Tsogas, and Blankson, 2000) and supported by discussions with experts and advertising executives, it was decided to adopt a newly developed consumer derived typology of positioning strategies (see Blankson and Kalafatis, 2004). The typology comprises eight dimensions that collectively are measured as summated scales of 30 items/statements (see the Appendix). To determine the positioning strategies employed by the card brands and then assess their congruence in the firm's positioning activities (i.e., whether

March 2 0 0 7 JOUROHL OF HDUERTISinG RESEDRCH 8 3


executives'/experts' presumed and the target group's perceived strategies are actually pursued in marketing communications practices, etc.), different measurement approaches were used for the three research populations: • Executives and experts: Referring to their firm's ow^n and most familiar card brand, respectively, respondents were presented with the eight positioning strategies (consisting of the 30 scale items/ statements) and were requested to rate each of them on a Likert scale of 1-7, where 1 = very irrelevant and 7 = very relevant. • Companies' advertising and marketing communications: Following the writings of Holsti (1969) and FrankfortNachmias and Nachmias (1996), content analysis was employed on the 319 col-

ple for one of the cards (i.e.. Visa). The composite findings are presented in the next section in the form of managerial (i.e., normative) guidelines. The full analysis for the entire eight cards can be requested from the authors.

lected advertisements based on the presence (or not present) of the scale items/ statements representing the eight positioning strategies (see the Appendix). • Members of the general public: Evaluation of perceptions was based on rating of two cards matching the scale items/statements where, on a Likert scale, 1 = very irrelevant and 7 = very relevant. A balanced design questionnaire was employed to ensure that the eight cards were examined.

Positioning aim(s)

From column A in Table 1 and in line with Kirk and Miller (1986), a content analysis of comments made by executives and experts show that the two positioning aims engaged in by Visa are "Profit" (reported by 20 of the 38 executives/ experts interviewed) and "Market Share" (18 of the 38 executives/experts). We assert that Visa's positioning aim of achieving profitability through the acquisition of a large market share is expected, in view of the card's characteristic of universal acceptance and mass marketing practices.

ANALYSIS

Each of the eight card brands (Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Diners Club, Marks & Spencer, Harrods, Switch, and Visa Delta) was analyzed separately before combining the results to draw overall conclusions. However, for brevity due to journal space, in this section we present an exam-

TABLE 1

Positioning Aim(s), Objective(s),and Current Life Cycle Stages: VISA Card Qualitative Analysis

Quantitative Analysis

Objective(s)

Alm(s)

No.

Current Life Cycle Stages

%

Residual

Profit (20)

Experiential

1

3

-11.7

Market share (18)

Symbolic

7

18

30

79

Functional

No.

Residual

Primal

3

8

-2.4

-5.7

Consolidation

2

5

-3.4

17.3

Latent position

4

11

-1.4

Deposition

1

3

-4.4

Fortification

11

29

5.6

Membership

14

37

8.6

3

8

-2.4

Fallow

Total Column A

%

38

Column B = 37.000; c/f=2; sig. = 0.000

100*

Column C A-'= 27.1579;

df= 6; sig. = 0.000

* Rounded off figure. Note: Visa is a brand system represented by banks and financial institutions operating the card. Resuits for this research, therefore, reflect tiie number of banks and financial institutions represented in the sample; total number of respondents observed = 38; figures in parentheses shozv number of respondents' remarks and is derived from eontent analysis of respondents' statements.

8 4 JOUROHL or ROOEOTISIOO RESEROCH March 2 0 0 7


Positioning objective(s) The results, presented in Table 1 under

TABLE 2 Positioning S t r a t e g i e s : VISA Card

column B, indicate lack of uniformity in

—

the replies obtained. Examination of resid-

Populations

uals leads to the conclusion that Visa pur-

w

'^

i.-

,,

«

Executives /

sues "Functional" (residual of 17.3) as the

• ,

Companies

r. -.i- •

^

Positioning

Experts

^ .

Communications

«

.

i.

Target Group's

. . . »

dominant objective. In other words, based ' on the definition of "Functional" objec-