Congruence between Positioning and Brand Advertising

Congruence between Positioning

and Brand Advertising

CHARLES BLANKSON

University of North

Texas

[email protected]

STAVROS P. KALAFATIS

Kingston University

Business School

[email protected]

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

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

study deals with the actual process of managing the concept of positioning. Using

multiple research methodology, a conceptual positioning framework that is the

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 interestand activities attached to the concept of position-ing (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 ele-ments of modern marketing management (Hooley,Saunders, and Piercy, 1998; Kotler, 2000; Porter,1996) and the foundation upon which marketingcommunications 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 stra-tegic positioning models that provide a compre-

hensive insight into the related activities concerningthe operationalization of positioning (Rigger, 1995;Rossiter and Percy, 1997). The latter is exacer-bated by the lack of managerial guidelines as tothe management of positioning activities (Rigger,1995). While attempts have been made by schol-ars to correct the omission, these have been con-ceptual and offer no operational and managerialguidelines (see Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy, 1998;Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986), despite thereported difficulties encountered in the applica-tion of the concept by managers and advertisingexecutives (Piercy, 2005). As a result, the difficul-ties surrounding the application of the concept bymanagers and advertising executives (Rossiter andPercy, 1997; Schultz, 2006) that emanate from the

DOI: 10.2501/S0021849907070080 M a r c h 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 coher-ent strategic positioning models has, nodoubt, created apprehension about the con-cept in the literature (Pollay, 1985).

Essentially, the purpose of this study isto propose and then operationalize a com-prehensive strategic positioning frame-work that incorporates the various decisionsand activities associated with the manage-ment/operationalization of positioning andthe subsequent generation of managerialguidelines (see Levitt, 2002; Porter, 1996).The former is the composite of two adoptedextant positioning frameworks (i.e.. Park,Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986: Brand Con-cept Image Management; Hooley, Saun-ders, and Piercy, 1998: Generic PositioningFramework). More specifically, the main ob-jectives of this research include:

1. the delineation of the decisions andactivities associated with strategicpositioning,

2. the construction of a composite strate-gic positioning framework that incor-porates the above decisions andactivities,

3. the operationalization of the proposedframework within the plastic card ser-vices domain, and

4. the proposition of managerial guidelines.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

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

ify the tangible characteristics and the in-tangible perceptions of a marketable of-fering in relation to the competition. Hegoes on (Arnott, 1992, pp. 111-14) to for-mally define positioning as: ". . . the de-liberate, proactive, iterative process ofdefining, measuring, modifying, and mon-itoring consumer perceptions of a market-able offering...." According to the author,the application of positioning involves cer-tain related activities, i.e., defining thedimensions of a particular perceptual spacethat adequately represents the target au-dience's perceptions; measuring objects lo-cations within that space and modifyingactual characteristics of the object and per-ceptions of the target audience via mar-keting communications strategies. Weadopt Arnott's (1992,1993) definition andtake it further by examining how position-ing can be operationalized.

Review of the extant literature identi-fied only two formally expressed strate-gically based conceptual positioningframeworks, namely. Park, Jaworski, andMaclnnis's (1986) Brand Concept ImageManagement (BCM) and the Generic Po-sitioning Framework (GPF) proposed byHooley, Saunders, and Piercy (1998). Thetwo frameworks were adopted and thencombined/amalgamated to form the ba-sis of the composite strategic positioningframework (Blankson and Kalafatis, 2001,2003; Blankson, Kalafatis, and Long-Tolbert, 2002). Following critical review of

BCM and GPF, one can infer that the twoframeworks lack operationalization guide-lines and diagnostic powers. More specif-ically, the two frameworks have overlookedthe issue of positioning over time (Porter,1996). The latter concerns overall position-ing aim of management/firm, the deter-mination of whether objectives are met,the management of products/services/brands through their life cycle stages (seeKermanshah, 1997), and the process ofoperationalization of the frameworks. Thisomission in the literature gave the impe-tus for this research.

The Composite Strategic

Positioning Modei

The Composite Strategic Positioning Frame-work attempts tc encapsulate the pro-position put forward by Arnott (1992,1993) and Levitt (2002) who suggestthat the management of positioning is aniterative process that is embarked uponthrough communication tactics and strat-egies (see also, Markides, 1997; Zeithamland Bitner, 1996). Thus, the long-term per-spective underpinning the managementof the concept of positioning must takeinto account issues regarding:

• specification of positioning aim(s), set-ting of positioning objectives (s), andidentification of appropriate position-ing strategies to support the definedobjectives;

• development of advertising and othermarketing communication messages ca-pable of delivering the desired mes-sage; and

• finally, managing the related activitiesover the life cycle stages of the offering.

As one can see from Figure 1, the pro-posed framework comprises three mainphases that reflect a sequential processin the decisions and activities associatedwith strategic positioning. These include

8 0 JDURORL or HOUERTISIflO REEEflRCH March 2 0 0 7


Phase 1Aim

Phase 2Objectives

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

Strategy

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LCSl LCS2 LCS3 LCS4 LCS5 LCS6 LCS7

Stage (I) Stage (ii)

Phase 3Implementation and Monitoring

Figure 1 The Composite Strategic Positioning Model (CPM)

defining the overall positioning aim (phase1), moving on to the specification of po-sitioning objectives (phase 2), translatingthese objectives into positioning strat-egies (phase 3-i), and the implementationand monitoring phase, which is the man-agement of the process over the life cycleof the offering (s) (phase 3-ii). Each of theseis debated in turn.

Phase 1: Defining the positioning aim(s).There is evidence in the literature thatstrongly supports the identification of apositioning aim as the first key stage inthe systematic process of the manage-ment of the concept of positioning (e.g.,McKenna, 1986; Myers, 1996; Rigger, 1995).In other words, it can be inferred thatbased on analysis of its competitive ad-vantages, its marketing capabilities as wellas the environment, a firm should formu-late its broad positioning aim (Hooleyand Greenley, 2005; Nylen, 1990). Thisshould 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 betranslated into congruent objective (s) (seeBerry, 1982; Levitt, 1986; Park, Jaworski, andMaclnnis, 1986) that individually or collec-tively influence the positioning strategiesto be adopted. There is a large body of workin the literature that supports positioningobjectives as an important element in theoperationalization of the positioning con-cept (see for example, Batra, Myers, andAaker, 1996; Doyle and Saunders, 1985). Po-sitioning objectives could be formulated inthe pursuit of low cost or high quality of-fering (Berry, 1982; McKenna, 1986) andmust be in line with resources (Hooley andGreenley, 2005; Hooley, Greenley, Fahy,and Cadogan, 2001; Hooley, Saunders, andPiercy, 1998; Nylen, 1990; Porter, 1996) andprofitability of segments (Fill, 1999; Park,Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986).

Phase 3: Implementation and monitor-ing of positioning strategy(ies). The im-plementation and monitoring phase is thefinal part of the proposed framework andis subdivided into two stages:

Stage I (Implementation). Once the objec-

tives have been set, decisions regardingthe appropriate strategy or strategies thatneed to be pursued to achieve the posi-tioning objective must be made. How-ever, given the criticisms of existingtypologies of positioning strategies (e.g.,Arnott, 1992; Crawford, 1985; Easing-wood and Mahajan, 1989) due to theirlack of consumer perspectives (Kalafatis,Tsogas, and Blankson, 2000), it was de-cided to adopt a newly developed andvalidated consumer-derived generic typol-ogy of positioning strategies (see the Ap-pendix). The strategies are considered toreflect the basis and foundation for theadvertising plan, the creative plan, andthe final campaign/promotional plan (Fill,

M a r c h 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

that emanate from the lack of empirically grounded and

coherent strategic positioning models has, no doubt,

created apprehension about the concept in the literature.

1999; Ries and Trout, 1986; Rossiter andPercy, 1997). To this end, copywriters, artdirectors, and photographers must beconversant with the selected positioningstrategies so that they may creatively in-corporate the strategies in the advertise-ment/promotion content. The latter maybe reflected in the location, situation,casting, lighting, style, photographs, en-dorsers, words, and the tone used. It issuggested that the appropriate position-ing strategy (ies) (see the Appendix) lo-cated on the vertical axis in the CompositeStrategic Positioning Model (CPM) (seeFigure 1) can be employed.

Stage IJ (Monitoring). The effectivenessof the positioning strategy(ies) pursuedmust be monitored vis-a-vis the statedpositioning objectives along the life cyclestages (located along the horizontal axisin Figure 1) of the offering. The process ofmonitoring is the iterative managementof the strategies within different life cyclestages to ensure the effectiveness of posi-tioning strategies pursued (Park, Jawor-ski, and Maclnnis, 1986). In other words,marketing managers and advertising ex-ecutives may decide to place (i.e., man-age) an offering in a specific life cyclestage using the appropriate positioningstrategy(ies) (see the Appendix).

In line with Lamb and Cravens' (1990)and Porter's (1996) writings, it is assertedthat to enhance the long-term survival of

the offering's position in the marketplaceand consistent with the process of moni-toring, over time, having taken into ac-count the nature of the environment,marketing managers and advertising ex-ecutives may decide to manage the offer-ing in the current life cycle stage or mayshift the offering into an appropriate lifecycle stage (see the Appendix) as indicatedin Figure 1. As noted earlier, the latterdecisions and activities are iterative (Ar-nott, 1993; Levitt, 2002; Zeithaml and Bit-ner, 1996) and may lead to the employmentof the firm's existing positioning strate-gy (ies) or the adoption of other pertinentpositioning strategies (see the Appendix).For the purposes of this study and basedon inductive reasoning, the general expla-nation proposed in the life cycle stages(see Kermanshah, 1997; Zimmermann,1982) and the product life cycle (see Har-rigan and Porter, 1991; Hooley, 1995;Kotler, 2000) concepts were adapted. Con-sequently, we propose seven positioninglife cycle stages (Primal, Consolidation,Latent, Deposition, Fortification, Member-ship, Fallow) (see the Appendix) in StageII of the CPM (Figure 1).

METHODOLOGY

This research employs multiple, i.e., a tri-angulation, methodology (secondary dataanalysis, face-to-face interviews, contentanalysis, and survey) and is based on across-sectional study. For illustrative pur-

poses, the chosen research setting is the

U.K. plastic card services industry (i.e.,

credit card, charge card, store card, and

debit card).

Sampling, data collection,

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 aboutoverall aim (phase 1), objectives (phase2), and position along the life cycle stages(LCS) in phase 3 was obtained from exec-utives and experts within the researchdomain. A convenience sample of execu-tives working for the selected plastic cards(e.g., managing directors, marketing direc-tors, marketing managers, product direc-tors, etc.) and individuals considered asexperts (e.g., advertising executives, direc-tors of plastic card institutions, partnersin consultancy firms operating in the sec-tor, academics with expertise in plasticcard research, etc.) within the U.K. plasticcard sector were identified (Winkler, 1981).Company information (e.g., annual re-ports), dedicated directories, and aca-demic publications comprised the sampleframe. Out of the 48 executives and 33experts contacted, 40 and 23, respectively,were interviewed. Data collection in-volved a combination of drop-off andpick-up survey and open-ended face-to-face long interviews (McCracken, 1998).

Companies' advertising and marketingcommunications. The positioning strate-gy(ies) adopted by the selected cards [i.e.,stage (i)—phase 3] was determined bycontent analysis (Holsti, 1969) of adver-tisements and promotions placed in TV,newspapers, brochures, pamphlets and

8 2 JOURimi or RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH March 2 0 0 7


leaflets, and outdoor posters (Fill, 1999;Rossiter and Percy, 1997). Data were gath-ered using a combination of publiclyavailable sources (e.g., the CTC—The Reg-ister Limited, which is a London-basedorganization that specializes in the record-ing of TV advertisements, and Saachi andSaachi Advertising Agency), newspapercuttings of advertisements, and manualcollection of brochures, pamphlets, andleaflets containing advertisements frombanks and financial institutions (i.e.. Visa,MasterCard, Amex, Diners Club, Switch,and Visa Delta), and retail store outlets(i.e., Marks & Spencer and Harrods). Inaddition, advertisements and promotionsappearing in outdoor locations (i.e., bill-boards, bus sides, bus shelters/stations,taxi sides, underground train stations, andcompanies' premises window show cases)were randomly photographed duringplanned and unplanned tours of London.In all, the combined efforts resulted in thecollection of 319 pieces of communicationthat were content analyzed.

Target group. Finally, to examine the mon-itoring part of the framework (i.e., whetherthere is congruence between what the firmis trying to achieve and the target popu-lation's perceptions), a survey with thegeneral public was deemed necessary.However, based on pilot work that indi-cated a positive correlation between abil-ity to conceptualize relative position andliteracy, the members of the general pub-lic population were defined as all U.K.resident adult users of plastic cards withgood level of literacy (see Spector, 1992and Oppenheim, 1992 for justification of oursample). Following the pilot test and con-sultations with experts, the sample framechosen was the list of members of the U.K.Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) (seealso, Armstrong, 1991). Our choice of sam-ple is in line with Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell,and Rallapalli (1995), who used members

of the American Marketing Association torepresent the public and Hankinson andCowking's (1997) selection of members ofthe CIM. The CIM (using simple randomsampling) circulated the questionnaire to1,000 of its members.

Data were collected through a self-completion questionnaire that requestedrespondents to express their views on arandom selection of two of the eight se-lected cards matching the 30 statements/items that comprised the adopted typologyof positioning strategies (see the Appen-dix). A balanced research design was em-ployed to ensure that the eight cards werecovered. Following a second reminder ofnonrespondents, 357 questionnaires werereceived yielding an effective 35 percentresponse rate. The usual tests of non-response bias (i.e., Hmited follow-ups, com-parison of early and late responses, etc.;Armstrong and Overton, 1977) were car-ried out, and we are satisfied as to therepresentativeness of the resultant sample.

Measurements and measures

A review of the literature shows that withthe exception of perceptual maps, therehave been few attempts to operationalizeelements of the positioning concept (Bhatand Reddy, 1998). Consequently, follow-ing review of the literature and con-sultations with experts and advertisingexecutives, specific measurements had tobe developed.

Positioning aim(s). Inductive reasoningwas applied to the answers given by ex-ecutives and experts to open-ended ques-tions soliciting their opinions on whatconstitute 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, func-tional, symbolic, and experiential (see theAppendix). This classification was pre-sented in the form of a nominal scale.Each of the executives and experts werethen requested to indicate the main (i.e.,only one) objective that best fitted thecard offered by their firm or, in the case ofexperts, the one they were most familiarwith.

Positioning life cycle stages (LCS). Theadoption and amalgamation of the LCSproposed by Park, Jaworski, and Macln-nis (1986) and Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy(1998) and further extensions by Blanksonand Kalafatis (2001, 2003) and Blankson,Kalafatis, and Long-Tolbert (2002) re-sulted in the following seven positioningLCSs: primal, consolidation, latent, depo-sition, fortification, membership, and fal-low (see the Appendix for definitions). Anominal scale was used and as with thepositioning objectives, the executives andexperts were requested to indicate a sin-gle LCS from the list provided that bestdescribed a specific card at the time of theresearch.

Positioning strategies. As has been men-tioned earlier, in view of criticisms lev-eled against extant conceptual andmanagerially driven typologies of posi-tioning strategies (Kalafatis, Tsogas, andBlankson, 2000) and supported by discus-sions with experts and advertising execu-tives, it was decided to adopt a newlydeveloped consumer derived typology ofpositioning strategies (see Blankson andKalafatis, 2004). The typology compriseseight dimensions that collectively aremeasured as summated scales of 30items/statements (see the Appendix). Todetermine the positioning strategiesemployed by the card brands and thenassess their congruence in the firm'spositioning activities (i.e., whether

March 2 0 0 7 JOUROHL OF HDUERTISinG RESEDRCH 8 3


executives'/experts' presumed and the tar-

get group's perceived strategies are actu-

ally pursued in marketing communications

practices, etc.), different measurement ap-

proaches 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 pre-

sented with the eight positioning strat-

egies (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 writ-

ings of Holsti (1969) and Frankfort-

Nachmias and Nachmias (1996), content

analysis was employed on the 319 col-

lected advertisements based on the pres-

ence (or not present) of the scale items/

statements representing the eight posi-

tioning strategies (see the Appendix).

• Members of the general public: Evalu-

ation of perceptions was based on rat-

ing of two cards matching the scale

items/statements where, on a Likert

scale, 1 = very irrelevant and 7 = very

relevant. A balanced design question-

naire was employed to ensure that the

eight cards were examined.

ANALYSIS

Each of the eight card brands (Visa, Mas-

terCard, Amex, Diners Club, Marks &

Spencer, Harrods, Switch, and Visa Delta)

was analyzed separately before combin-

ing the results to draw overall conclu-

sions. However, for brevity due to journal

space, in this section we present an exam-

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 analy-

sis for the entire eight cards can be re-

quested from the authors.

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 position-

ing 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 as-

sert that Visa's positioning aim of achiev-

ing profitability through the acquisition of

a large market share is expected, in view of

the card's characteristic of universal accep-

tance and mass marketing practices.

TABLE 1

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

Qualitative Analysis

Alm(s)

Profit (20)

Market share (18)

Column A

Experiential

Symbolic

Functional

Objective(s)

No.

1

7

30

Column

= 37.000; c/f=2;

%

3

18

79

B

sig.

Quantitative Analysis

Residual

-11.7

-5.7

17.3

= 0.000

Current Life Cycle Stages

Primal

Consolidation

Latent position

Deposition

Fortification

Membership

Fallow

Total

A-'= 27.1

No.

3

2

4

1

11

14

3

38

Column C

579; df= 6;

%

8

5

11

3

29

37

8

100*

Residual

-2.4

-3.4

-1.4

-4.4

5.6

8.6

-2.4

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 eon-

tent analysis of respondents' statements.

8 4 JOUROHL or ROOEOTISIOO RESEROCH M a r c h 2 0 0 7


Positioning objective(s) TABLE 2

The results, presented in Table 1 under Posit ioning S t r a t eg i e s : VISA Cardcolumn B, indicate lack of uniformity in —

the replies obtained. Examination of resid- Populations

uals leads to the conclusion that Visa pur- w i.- , , « • ,'^ Executives / Companies

sues "Functional" (residual of 17.3) as the r. -.i- • ^ ^ . « . i. . . . »Positioning Experts Communications Target Group's

dominant objective. In other words, based <.* * ^. r. i.- ,=,« •• »' Strategies Presumptions ©Overali Perceptions

on the definition of "Functional" objec-

tive, we can conclude that the objective l°.?..9l^^^..''.^.'[}^^.

associated with the positioning of the Visa Service * *

card is designed to be related to specific. Value for money *basic, and practical consumption prob-

^ f r Reliability * *lems (i.e., it is a "utility" card used in avariety of situations and conditions). It . . I . T'.'.Y?

can be inferred that the choice of "Func- Country of origin

tional" is consistent with Visa's pursuit of ^^^ g . ^ 1^^^^ * * *

mass marketing coupled with its univer-, , Selectivitysal acceptance. <

F-ratio = 15.130; F-ratIo = 13.445; F-ratio = 45.571;

Current positioning LCS clf= 7,296; c/f= 7,464; c/f= 7,701;

Concerning Visa's LCS, a similar analysis sig. = 0.000 sig. = 0.000 sig. = 0.000

to the one outlined for the objectives aboveNotes; Companies' Communications® in media: TV, newspapers, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets, and outdoor adver-

w a s carr ied o u t . Visa a p p e a r s to b e p l a c e d tisements and promotions, i.e., billboards, advertisements on bus sides, taxi sides, underground stations, and companies'

w i t h i n the "Fort i f icat ion" a n d " M e m b e r - zvindow shoioeases. Overall refers to across all media. An asterisk (*} is used to indicate those strategies that are in the1 . // T , " f i / .. . 1 1 r ^ ^ 1 subset associated with the highest values emanating from the multiple comparison tests.

ship LCS (respective residuals of 5.6 and f •

8.6). This was corroborated by examina-

tion of the actual pattern in the number

of Visa card holders and volume of Visa ered to be dominant in the positioning notes an issue of duty-bound to

card transactions. of Visa (see Table 2). Examination of customers, while "The Brand Name"

the four positioning strategies appears projects aspects of differentiation about

to confirm earlier findings for Visa's the card. These findings are considered

positioning aims, objective, and LCS to be consistent with comments made

regarding this card's mass marketing by the executives/experts interviewed

approach. This is based on the premise and help to support earlier conclusions,

that while "Service" denotes the ge- 3. Target group's perceptions: "Reliabil-

neric purpose of this card, "The Brand ity" and "The Brand Name" are the

Name" indicates its clear differentia- two dominant strategies perceived by

tion/identification in the market as a the target group to be pursued by Visa,

whole, and "Value for money" and "Re- The two positioning strategies appear

liability" underline the card's effort to to underline aspects of dependability

be perceived as affordable yet depend- and exclusiveness/competitiveness per-

able for all segments. ceived by the target group.

2. Communications: As Table 2 indicates.

Overall (i.e., across all media), "Ser- DISCUSSION AND iVlANAGERIAL

vice," and "The Brand Name" appear GUIDELINES

to be emphasized. As expected of a Having analyzed each card separately, we

financial service company, "Service" de- proceed to report the composite results.

Positioning strategies

Data from executives and experts, firms'

communications and target group were

subjected to ANOVA. In cases where sig-

nificant differences between the position-

ing strategies have been identified, multiple

comparison tests were carried out (see

Table 2). Thus an asterisk (*) is used to

denote those strategies that were found to

belong to the subset associated with the

highest mean values.

1. Executives' and experts' presumptions:

The results indicate significant differ-

ences with four strategies, i.e., "Ser-

vice," "Value for money," "Reliability,"

and "The Brand Name" (see *), consid-

March 2 0 0 7 JDURRRL RF flRUERTieillG RESERRCR 8 5


Next, we highlight (in bullet points) the

managerial or practical guidelines. We do

this by considering the expected (and log-

ical) link/congruence between successive

activities (see Figure 2). Before proceed-

ing we must add that the results indicate

that, with the exception of Diners Club

and Visa Delta cards, all cards under con-

sideration are located within the "Fortifi-

cation" and "Membership" LCSs. Diners

Club is found in "Fallow" while Visa Delta

is identified with "Deposition" LCSs (see

the Appendix for definitions).

Positioning aim(s), objective(s),

and congruence in strategies

The results presented in Table 3 indicatethat the "Profit and Market Share" aimwill best be achieved through "Func-tional" objectives. In other words, all cardbrands in the credit and debit sectors (i.e..Visa and MasterCard, and Switch and VisaDelta, respectively) are located in the"Profit and Market Share"-"Functional"cell.

• It is posited that the combination of"Profit and Market Share" aim and"Functional" objectives is particularlyrelevant/appropriate for offerings/services that represent "utility" or "ver-satile" usage of the offering (Park,Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986). The po-sitioning strategies to emphasize in ad-vertising and in other communications,and which are most appropriate forthis combination of aim and objectives

Our findings provide some empirical evidence about iiow

plastic card service marketers pursue the application/

operationalization of the concept of positioning.

are: "Service," "Value for money," "Re-

liability," and "The Brand Name."

Conversely, the "Top of the range," "At-

tractiveness," "Country of origin," and

"Selectivity" strategies are not consid-

ered to be compatible with such aim

and objectives.

The "Profit and Status" aim can bepursued by either "Functional" or "Sym-bolic" objectives. It is argued that histor-ical and breadth of use considerationsshould determine which of the two objec-tives should be followed. For example,offerings, which have a limited/narrowgeographical coverage and exclusivity,may be best positioned using symbolicobjectives through expression of "status,"which can take the form of group mem-bership, ego-identification, desire to im-press, etc., all of which are connotationsrelated to the possession of luxury offer-ings (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986).

• Therefore, it is proposed that offerings(e.g., service brands) aiming to positionthemselves as status symbols shouldfollow objectives that emphasize therelationship of the owner/customer of

PositioningAim(s)

PositioningObjectives(s)

PositioningStrategy(ies)

Communications ConsumerPerceptions

Figure 2 Decisions and Activities Embodied in the CompositePositioning IVIodel

the offering against peer group or interms of self-actualization, throughexclusivity.

On the other hand, those offerings thatare associated with status, that reflectbroad acceptance (e.g., value for money),and that are widely accessible shouldadopt functional objectives (see Marks& Spencer in Table 3). The above indi-cates that "Status" aim can take differ-ent forms. These have been found to bedetermined by surrogate connotationsthat are related/reflect customer at-tempts to attach tangible elements tointangible services (e.g., store image,high street visibility, etc.).In terms of positioning strategies, theresults indicate that for "Status" posi-tioning aim and "Functional" position-ing objective, "Top of the range,""Service," "Value for money," "Reli-ability," "Attractiveness," "The BrandName," and "Selectivity" positioningstrategies must be stressed in advertise-ments and communications. As for "Sta-tus" and "Symbolic," similar to the latter,it is suggested that a wide variety ofpositioning strategies could be em-ployed including, "Top of the range,""Service," "Reliability," "Attractive-ness," "The Brand Name," and "Selec-tivity," a fact that is considered to reflectthe individualistic nature of offeringspursuing this combination of position-ing aim and positioning objectives. Onthe other hand, "Value for money" and"Country of origin" are considered tobe incompatible with this combinationof aim and objectives.

8 6 JRURRRL RF RRUERTiSiRG RESERRCH March 2 0 0 7


TABLE 3Positioning Aim(s), Objective(s), and Congruence in Strategies

Aiin(s)

Profit and Market Share

Profit and Status

Profit and Cobranding

Positioning

Strategies

Top of the range

Service

Value for money

Reliability

Attractiveness

Country of origin

The Brand Nanne

Selectivity

Experiential

Experiential

Symbolic

Amex Harrods

Diners Club

Symbolic

Amex Diners Club Harrods

* * *

* * *

_ _ _

* _ *

* _ *

* _ *

* _ *

Positioning Objective(s)

Functional

Visa MasterCard Switch Visa Delta

Marks & Spencer

Functional

Visa MasterCard Marks & Spencer Switch Visa Delta

— * _ _ _

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

- * _ _ _

— — — _ _

_ * _ _ _

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates significance while - stands for not significant. They emanate from the multiple comparison tests.

The "Profit and Cobranding" aim is asso-ciated only with "Symbolic" objective andis similar to our earlier discussion on "Sym-bolic." This set of aim is appropriate forofferings/firms who want to achieve prof-its through association or relationship withother firms and/or their brands. As shownin Table 3, although the two charge cards(i.e., Amex and Diners Club) are relatedwith the "Symbolic" objective, there aredifferences in the related congruence/link with positioning aim. While Amex isassociated with the "Profit and Status,"Diners Club is associated with the "Profitand Cobranding" aim.

Positioning objective(s) andcongruent strategiesIrrespective of the positioning objectivepursued, "Service," "Reliability," and "The

Brand Name" should form part of thepositioning strategy (see Table 3). "Ser-vice" is considered to denote the genericnature/purpose of the research setting (i.e.,plastic cards) and indeed "services" ingeneral. In terms of "Reliability," it is sug-gested that this is akin to the notion ofdependability, certainty, and honesty, whichis an important prerequisite in the use ofservice offerings from both the consum-er's and the seller's perspective. Finally,"The Brand Name" is taken to denote theproviders' endeavors to differentiate them-selves and is considered to reflect brand-ing activities. Conversely, "Country oforigin" appears to be an inappropriate po-sitioning strategy and should not be pur-sued. Such a finding is believed to derivefrom the growing global, universal, and"flexible usage" approach taken by plastic

card service providers (see for example,Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra, 1999).

• Looking at "Functional" positioningobjective, the results indicate that inaddition to the overall positioning strat-egies, such objective should also be pur-sued through a "Value for money"positioning strategy. This appears con-sistent with the preceding debate interms of the fact that functionality isconsidered to reflect wide use of orflexibility of usage of the offering thusmaking financial consideration vis-a-vis benefits derived, i.e., "Value formoney," an important consideration.

• In terms of "Symbolic" positioning ob-jectives, these should be pursuedthrough "Top of the range," "Attrac-tiveness," and "Selectivity" positioning

March 2 0 0 7 JRURRRL RF RRUERTISiOG RESERRCR 8 7


strategies. Such strategies are viewed

as promoting desire for actualization of

internal needs through the use of lux-

ury service (e.g., Amex and Harrods

cards). The "Experiential" positioning

objective is not considered to be em-

ployed by any of the card brands in

our study. This supports empirical re-

search by Bhat and Reddy (1998) and

consequently the "Experiential" objec-

tive is not included in our discussion.

Positioning strategies and

communications

As shown in Table 4, looking at "Sym-

bolic" objectives, "Top of the range" is

employed by all card brands. "Value for

money" and to a lesser extent "Country

of origin" are not employed. On the other

hand, "Service" and "Attractiveness" strat-

egies are presumed to be pursued while

this is not reflected in the marketing com-

munication practices of Diners Club and

Harrods card brands. As for "Func-

tional" objectives, "Service" and "The

Brand Name" positioning strategies are

pursued across all five card brands (see

Table 4) while "Country of origin" posi-

tioning strategy is not employed by any

of the cards using "Functional" objec-

tives. "Value for money" and, to a lesser

extent, "Reliability" are presumed to be

employed while this is not reflected in

marketing communication practices. In the

case of "Attractiveness," communications

fail to communicate the desired message.

Looking at Table 5, in terms of "The

Brand Name," this positioning strategy is

found to be presumed to be pursued and

is actually reflected in the communica-

tions efforts of the card companies. In

addition, it has been found to be success-

fully communicated to the target audi-

ence, thus emphasizing effective branding

strategies and activities within the plastic

card sector. The increasing competitive

activities in the sector is offered as a cat-

alyst for the branding strategies and ac-

tivities, which are believed to have led to

these results. Moreover, "The Brand Name"

is the only positioning strategy, which has

been found to exhibit total congruence

across all the eight card brands and across

the three populations studied (i.e., execu-

tives and experts, companies' communi-

cations, and target group).

• One can therefore conclude that all firms

operating in this sector should con-

tinue to emphasize "The Brand Name"

TABLE 4Congruence between Executives'/Experts' Presumed Strategies and Actual Communication


Functionai

Positioning Strategies Amex

Symboiic

Diners Ciub Harrods Visa iVIasterCard iVI&S Switch Visa Deita

Top of the range

Service

Value for money

Reliability

Attractiveness

Country of origin

The Brand Name

Selectivity

NE = 6 (25%)

E = 7 (29%)

E

E

NE

E

PdC

NE

PdC

E

E

PdC

NE

NE

CF

NE

CF

CF

CF = 3 (13%)

PdC = 8 (33%)

Agreement cases = 13 (54%)

Employed strategy = Top of the range

E

PdC

NE

PdC

PdC

PdC

E

PdC

CF

E

PdC

E

CF

NE

E

NE

NE =

E =

PdC

E

PdC

PdC

E

NE

E

PdC

: 11 (28%)

: 14 (35%)

Employed

NE

E

E

PdC

CF

NE

E

NE

NE

E

PdC

PdC

CF

NE

E

NE

CF = 6 (15%)

PdC = 9 (23%)

Agreennent cases = 25 (62%)

strategies = Service, The Brand

NE

E

PdC

E

CF

NE

E

CF

Name

Notes: NE = strategy not employed; E = strategy employed; CF - strategy in communications do not reflect presumptions or perceptions; PdC = strategy presumed or perceived to be

practiced/present without communications; and M&S = Marks & Spencer store card.

8 8 JRURRRL or RDUERTISIRG RESERRCR M a r c h 2 0 0 7


TABLE 5Congruence between Actual Communication Strategies and Target Group'sPerceived Strategies


Functionai

Positioning Strategies Amex

Symboiic

Diners Ciub Harrods Visa iViasterCard iVi&S Switcii Visa Deita

Top of the range

Service

Value for money

Reliability

Attractiveness

Country of origin

The Brand Name

Selectivity

NE = 7 /5 * (29%)

E = 8 /5 * (33%)

E*

CF*

NE*

CF*

NE

NE*

E*

CF*

Agreement cases

Employed strategies = Top of

E*

PdC

NE*

PdC

E

NE*

E

E

CF =

PdC =

=15/24

the range

E*

PdC

NE*

PdC*

PdC*

NE

E*

PdC*

4/4*(17%)

5/4* (21%)

(63%)

, The Brand Name

CF

CF

NE

E

CF

NE*

E*

NE*

NE =

E =

NE

CF

PdC

PdC*

CF

NE*

E*

NE

12/6* (30%)

9/5*(23%)

PdC

E*

E*

PdC*

CF

NE*

E*

PdC

Agreement cases

Employed strategy =

NE*

CF

PdC

PdC*

CF

NE

E*

NE*

CF =11/C

PdC = 8/5*

NE*

CF

PdC

E*

CF

NE

E*

CF

1 (28%)

(20%)

= 21/40 (53%)

The Brand Name

An asterisk (') in any cell indicates that the same conclusion has been reached by executives/experts.

Notes: NE = strategy not employed; E = strategy employed; CF = strategy in communications do not reflect presumptions or perceptions; PdC — strategy presumed or perceived to be

practiced/present without commtinications; and M&S = Marks & Spencer store card.

of the offering in their advertisementsand other marketing communicationtactics and strategies (Park, Jaworski,and Maclnnis, 1986; Rossiter and Percy,1997) and over a long period of time(see Kalra and Goodstein, 1998; Porter,1996).

As can be seen from Tables 4 and 5, thepattern for the positioning strategy spe-cific to "Functional" objectives, i.e., "Valuefor money," appears to be identical to the"Reliability" positioning strategy. This leadsus to the conclusion that some position-ing strategies are f)resumed by executives/experts to be practiced and perceived bythe target group without any explicitpromotional efforts by the providers. It

appears that the "universality," i.e., accep-tance in most outlets, of the cards thatfollow "Functional" positioning objective(i.e.. Credit and Debit Cards) in this cat-egory, is offered as a possible explanation.

• Although there is no apparent need foraction, it is suggested that due careshould be exercised, so that advertisingand other marketing communication ac-tivities do not conflict with executives'/experts' and target group's perceptions.As for the "Value for money" position-ing strategy, this emphasizes benefitsvis-a-vis the cost of using the card.

• Concerning the positioning strategiesspecific to the "Symbolic" positioningobjectives, i.e., the "Top of the range,"

"Attractiveness," and "Selectivity," thefollowing managerial guideline can beput forward: "Top of the range" exhib-its an identical pattern to that for "TheBrand Name" positioning strategy (seeTable 5). Consequently, it is suggestedthat these positioning strategies mustbe effectively communicated.

The results for the "Attractiveness" po-sitioning strategy appear to differ be-tween cards. For example, the Harrodscard has been perceived by the targetaudience as attractive and also presumedby executives/experts to be so while thisis not reflected in the provider's commu-nications. One can conclude that this isyet another example of latent association

March 2 0 0 7 JDURIL DF RDUERTISinG RESEHRCH 8 9


between the service itself and tangiblefeatures (Hansotia, Shaikh, and Sheth,1985).

• It is consequently suggested that, in

general, organizations adopting "Attrac-

tiveness" positioning strategy need to

consider whether they can offer a tangi-

ble element (e.g., store) to support the

strategy (i.e., services that have tan-

gibles must coordinate). Finally, the analy-

sis has provided inconclusive results in

terms of the "Selectivity" positioning

strategy (Tables 4 and 5), and no specific

managerial guideline is put forward.

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

This research has formulated and con-structed a strategic composite positioningframework and has operationalized itwithin a specific sector of the U.K. ser-vices industry. The general patterns of thecomponents of the model concerning thedecisions and activities have been de-scribed, and the underlining comprehen-siveness and robustness of the proposedframework have been confirmed by theirinherent explanatory and predictive pow-ers. This study is considered to representa response to Piercy's (2005) concerns aboutthe difficulty facing marketing managers,advertising executives, and researchers(Rigger, 1995) in the positioning ofofferings.

Undoubtedly, the operationalization ofpositioning appears to be woefully miss-ing in the literature (Hooley, Greenley,Fahy, and Cadogan, 2001; Levitt, 2002;Piercy, 2005; Rossiter and Percy, 1997;Schultz, 2006), and this study has at-tempted to respond to the omission in theliterature. Specifically, our findings pro-vide some empirical evidence about howplastic card service marketers pursue the

The Composite Strategic Positioning Modei put forward

and the positioning aims, objectives, and strategies

pursued by these U.K. piastic card firms provide valuabie

guideiines and benchmarks for other firms to appreciate

and/or foiiow.

application/operationalization of the con-cept of positioning. The Composite Stra-tegic Positioning Model put forward andthe positioning aims, objectives, and strat-egies pursued by these U.K. plastic cardfirms provide valuable guidelines andbenchmarks for other firms to appreciateand/or follow. For managers and adver-tising executives, as a result of the ab-sence of managerial guidelines, the presentstudy provides them with descriptions ofthe basic "building blocks" in the form ofpractical directions for applying the con-cept of positioning, which, hitherto, hasbeen overlooked by researchers (Hooley,Greenley, Fahy, and Cadogan, 2001; Rig-ger, 1995; Schultz, 2006). Thus, the re-search has attempted to respond to claimsmade by Johar and Sirgy (1989) that theproliferation of positioning models neces-sitates some attempt to guide marketingmanagers, advertising executives, and mar-keting researchers as to how and when touse what positioning models.

Concerning limitations of this study, weacknowledge (a) the potential impact offactors outside the scope of this investiga-tion (e.g., organizational culture, financialstability, etc.) and (b) the lack of (trueexperimental) control over the constructsunder examination. Nevertheless, the coretenet of the proposed model, which re-flects managerial control over marketingactivities, implies that this study is pre-dominantly interested in defining, formu-

lating, and then applying/operationalizingthe actual process of positioning. Furtherstudies are needed to explore the adapta-tion of the present study in the context ofa case study or the replication in otherindustry sectors such as goods, business-to-business markets, and in other environ-ments. To this end, it is worthy to mentionthat the full result on the eight card brandsexamined in this study is available, uponrequest, for the benefit of researchers in-terested in replicating or extending ourstudy,

CHARLES BLANKSON (Ph.D., Kingston University, United

Kingdom) is an assistant professor of marketing and

associate director of the New Product Deveiopment

Scholars Program in the Department of Marketing &

Logistics at the Coiiege of Business Administration,

University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. His research

interests include positioning and brand managennent,

services marketing, smali business marketing, and

internationai/muiticuiturai marketing. He has pub-

lished in or has forthcoming articles in Industrial

Marketing Management, the Journal of Business and

Industrial Marketing, the Journal of Services Marketing,

the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, the Jour-

nal of Product and Brand Management, the Journal of

Marketing Communications, the Journal of Marketing

Management, the Journal of Strategic Marketing, Mar-

keting intelligence & Planning, the Journal of the Mar-

ket Research Society, and others.

STAVROS R KALAFATIS (Ph.D., University of Wales at

Bangor, United Kingdom) is a professor of business

9 0 JOURIL or RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH March 2 0 0 7


marketing and director of the Business-to-Business

Marketing Research Unit at the Kingston University

Business School, London, United Kingdom. He is the

past director of the doctoral programs at Kingston

University Business School. His research interests

include design and management of channels of distri-

bution, relationship marketing, business segmentation

and positioning, and value creation. His work has

been in or is forthcoming in Irtdustriat Marketing Man-

agement, the European Journal of Marketing, the

Journal of Services Marketing, the Journal of Marketing

Management, the Journal of Business and Industrial

Marketing, the Journal of Product and Brand Manage-

ment, the Service Industries Journal, the International

Journal of Market Research, the Journal of Marketing

Theory and Practice, the Journal of Marketing Commu-

nications, and many others.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to the three anonymous JAR

reviewers for their insight, constructive criti-

cisms, and suggestions on earlier versions of

the manuscript. We also thank the editors for

their constructive criticisms and directions that

helped improve this article. The authors grate-

fully acknowledge the helpful directions of the

editorial administrators.

REFERENCES

AAKER, D. A., and J. SHANSBY. "Positioning

Your Product." Business Horizons 25, 3 (1982);

56-62.

ALDEN, D. L., J. B. E. M. STEENKAMP, and R.

BATRA. "Brand Positioning through Advertis-

ing in Asia, North America, and Europe; The

Role of Global Consumer Culture." Journal of

Marketing 63, 1 (1999); 75-87.

ARMSTRONG, J. S. "Prediction of Consumer Be-

havior by Experts and Novices." Journal of Con-

sumer Research 18, 2 (1991); 251-56.

, and T. S. OVERTON. "Estimating Non-

Response Bias in Mail Surveys." Journal of Mar-

keting Research 14, 3 (1977); 396--402.

ARNOTT, D. C. "Bases of Financial Services

Positioning in the Personal Pension, Life As-

surance and Personal Equity Plan Sectors." Ph.D.

Thesis, Manchester Business School, University

of Manchester, U.K., 1992.

. "Positioning; Redefining the Concept."

Warwick University Business School (U.K.) Re-

search Papers #81, 1993.

BATRA, R., J. G. MYERS, and D. A. AAKER Ad-

vertising Management, 5th ed. Upper Saddle

River, NJ; Prentice-Hall, 1996.

BERRY, L. L. "Retail Positioning Strategies for

the 198O's." Business Horizons 25, 6 (1982); 45-50.

BHAT, S., and S. K. REDDY. "Symbolic and Func-

tional Positioning of Brands." Journal of Con-

sumer Marketing 15, 1 (1998); 32-43.

BuANKSON, C, and S. P. KALAFATIS. "Toward a

Composite Strategic Positioning Framework,"

Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Sci-

ence World Marketing Congress Conference,

Cardiff, Wales, U.K., Vol. X, (CD-ROM), June

28-July 1, 2001.

-, and -. "Comprehensive Strategic

Positioning Framework; Generalizations and

Propositions." Winter AMA Educators' Confer-

ence Proceedings, Orlando, FL, February 2003.

- , and • -. "The Development and Val-

idation of a Scale Measuring Consumer/

Customer-Derived Generic Typology of

Positioning Strategies." Journal of Marketing Man-

agement 20, 1-2 (2004); 5-43.

, , and S. J. LoNG-ToLBERT. "To-

wards the Operationaiization of the Position-

ing Concept and Incidence of Congruence in

the Services Industry." Proceedings of the Acad-

emy of Marketing Science 2002 Multicultural

Marketing Conference (CDROM), Valencia,

Spain, June 26-29, 2002.

CRAWFORD, C. M. "A New Positioning Typol-

ogy." Journal of Product Innovation Management

1, 4 (1985); 243-53.

DILLON, W. R., T. DOMZAL, and T. J. MADDEN.

"Evaluating Alternative Product Positioning

Strategies." Journal of Advertising Research 26, 4

(1986); 29-35.

DOYLE, P., and J. SAUNDERS. "Market Segmen-

tation and Positioning in Specialized Industrial

Markets." Journal of Marketing 49,2 (1985); 24-32.

EASINGWOOD, C. J., and V. MAHAJAN. "Position-

ing of Financial Services for Competitive Strat-

egy." Journal of Product Innovation Management

6, 3 (1989); 207-19.

FILL, C. Marketing Communications: Contexts, Con-

tents and Strategies, 2nd ed. Hemel-Hempstead,

U.K.; Prentice-Hall Europe, 1999.

FRANKFORT-NACHMIAS, C , and D. NACHMIAS.

Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th ed.

London; Arnold-Hodder Group, 1996.

HANKINSON, G., and P. COWKING. "Branding in

Practice; The Profile and Role of Brand Man-

agers in the UK." Journal of Marketing Manage-

ment 13, 4 (1997); 239-64.

HANSOTIA, B. ]., M. A. SHAIKH, and J. N. SHETH.

"The Strategic Determinancy Approach to Brand

Management." Business Marketing 70, 2 (1985);

66-69.

HARRIGAN, K. R., and M. E. PORTER. "End-

Game Strategies for Declining Industries." In

Harvard Business Reviezu on Competition and Strat-

egy, Michael E. Porter, ed.. Paperback version.

No. 90079. Boston, MA; Harvard Business School

Publishing, 1991.

M a r c h 2 0 0 7 JOUBRRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESERRCH 9 1


HOLSTI, O . R. Content Analysis for Social Sci-

ences and Humanities. London; Addison-Wesley,

1969.

HOOLEY, G . J. "The Lifecycle Concept Revis-

ited; Aid or Albatross?" Journal of Strategic Mar-

keting 3, 1 (1995); 23-39.

, and GORDON GREENLEY. "The Resource

Underpinnings of Competitive Positions." Jour-

nal of Strategic Marketing 13, 2 (2005); 93-116.

, , JOHN FAHY, and JOHN CADOGAN.

"Market-Focused Resources, Competitive Posi-

tioning and Firm Performance." Journal of Mar-

keting Management 17, 5-6 (2001); 503-20.

, J. A. SAUNDERS, and N. F. PIERCY Mar-

keting Strategy & Competitive Positioning, 2nd

ed. London; Prentice Hall Europe, 1998.

JOHAR, J. S., and M. J. SIRGY. "Positioning Mod-

els in Marketing; Toward a Normative-Integrated

Model." Journal of Business and Psychology 3, 4

(1989); 475-85.

KALAFATIS, S. P., M. TSOCAS, and C. BLANKSON.

"Positioning Strategies in Business Markets."

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 15, 2

(2000); 416-37.

KALRA, A., and R. C. GOODSTEIN. "The Impact

of Advertising Positioning Strategies on Con-

sumer Price Sensitivity." Journal of Marketing

Research 35, 2 (1998); 210-24.

KERMANSHAH, M . "Life Cycle Concept; Appli-

cation to Trip Generation Procedures." Iranian

Journal of Science and Technology 21, 1 (1997):

47-67.

KIRK, ]., and M. L. MILLER. "Reliability and

Validity in Qualitative Research." Qualitative

Research Methods, Series 1. Newbury Park, CA:

SAGE Publications, 1986.

KOTLER, P. Marketing Management (The Mille-

nium Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 2000.

LAMB, C . W., and D. W. CRAVENS. "Services

Marketing; Reaching the Customer and Creat-

ing Satisfaction." Business 40, 1 (1990); 13-19.

LEVITT, T. The Marketing Imagination (new ex-

panded edition). New York; The Free Press,

1986.

. "Creativity Is Not Enough." Harvard Busi-

ness Review 80, 8 (2002); 137-44.

MARKIDES, C . "Strategic Innovation." Sloan Man-

agement Review 38, 3 (1997); 9-23.

MCCRACKEN, G . The Long Interview. Newbury

Park, CA; Sage Publications, 1998.

MCKENNA, R. The Regis Touch: New Marketing

Strategies for Uncertain Times. Reading, MA;

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986.

MYERS, J. H. Segmentation and Positioning for

Strategic Marketing Decisions. Chicago, IL; Amer-

ican Marketing Association, 1996.

NYLEN, D . W. Marketing Decision-Making Hand-

book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall, 1990.

OPPENHEIM, A . N . Questionnaire Design, Inter-

view and Attitude Measurement. London; Pinter

Publishers, 1992.

PARK, C . W., B. J. JAWORSKI, and D. J. MACIN-

Nis. "Strategic Brand Concept-Image Manage-

ment." Journal of Marketing 50, 4 (1986); 135-45.

PECHMANN, C , and S. RATNESHWAR. "The Use

of Comparative Advertising for Brand Position-

ing; Association versus Differentiation." Journal

of Consumer Research 18, 2 (1991); 145-60.

PIERCY, N . F. Market-Led Strategic Change: A

Ctiide to Transforming the Process of Coing to

Market. London; Elsevier Butterworth Heine-

mann, 2005.

POLLAY, R. W. "The Subsidizing Sizzle; A De-

scriptive History of Print Advertising, 1900-

1980." Journal of Marketing 50, 4 (1985); 135-45.

PORTER, M . E. "What Is Strategy." Harvard

Business Revieiu 74, 6 (1996); 61-78.

PRINCE, M . " H O W Consistent Is the Informa-

tion in Positioning Studies?" Journal of Adver-

tising Research 30, 3/4 (1990); 25-30.

RIES, A., and J. TROUT. Positioning: The Battle for

Your Mind. London; McGraw-Hill Companies,

1986.

RIGGER, W. "Positioning in Theory and Prac-

tice; Towards a Research Agenda." 24th EMAC

Conference Proceedings, ESSEC, France, May

16-19, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 991-1009.

ROSSITER, J. R., and L. PERCY. Advertising Com-

munications & Promotion Management. New York;

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.

SCHULTZ, D. E. "Measuring Up; Brand Metrics

Need an Overhaul." Marketing Management 15,

2 (2006): 10-11.

SiNCHAPAKDi, A., K. L. KRAFT, S. J. VITELL, and

K. C. RALLAPALLI. "The Perceived importance

of Ethics and Social Responsibility on Organi-

zational Effectiveness, A Survey of Marketers,"

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 1

(1995); 49-56.

SPECTOR, P. E. Summated Rating Scale Construc-

tion. SAGE University Papers. London; SAGE

Publications, 1992.

9 2 JDURRRL or RDUERTISIflG RESERRCR March 2 0 0 7


WiNKLER, R. L. "Combining Probability Distri-

butions from Dependent Information Sources."

Management Science 27, 4 (1981): 479-88.

ZEITHAML, V. A., and M. J. BITNER Services

Marketing. New York: The McGraw-Hill Com-

panies, Inc., 1996.

ZiMMERMANN, C. "The Life Cycle Concept as a

Tool for Travel Research." Transportation 11, 1

(1982): 51-69.

APPENDIX

Notes to Accompany Fjgure 1[The Composite Strategic Positioning Model (CPM)]

POSITIONING

1. Profit and market share: This reflects a

desire to achieve profits through in

creased market share.

2. Profit and status: In this aim, profit is to

be achieved through the development

of an image of exclusivity, rarity, or

other similar status seeking images.

3. Profit and Cobranding: This aim con-

cerns efforts in achieving profits through

association or relationship with other

firms and/or their brands.

POSITIONING OBJECTIVES^

1. Functional: These objectives reflect ba-

sic and/or practical propositions and

require specific product/services. For

example, vacuum cleaners, computers,

credit cards, ir\surance, etc. that are

meant to solve a basic problem, pre-

vent a potential basic problem, or

restructure a frustrating situation. Ex-

amples are basic necessity goods.

2. Symbolic: Unlike functional objectives,

symbolic objectives are meant to sat-

isfy internally generated needs such as

enhancement, group membership, ego-

identification, and the desire to im-

press. Examples include luxury goods.

3. Experiential: These are objectives that

require sensory pleasure, variety, and

with cognitive awareness. A brand

with an experiential objective is there-

fore aimed at satisfying variety and

stimulation based needs such as enter-

tainment, pleasure seeking, cosmetics,

etc.

POSITIONING LIFE CYCLE

STAGES (LCS)3

1. Primal: This is the initial stage in the

management of the offering and in-

volves traditional marketing mix pro-

grams, operating activities, and market

entry strategies. This stage is crucial

because it forms the basis upon which

subsequent LCSs are likely to survive.

2. Consolidation: This position might be

employed by market leaders and can

also be appropriate for nonleaders with

a strong image where promotional em-

phasis may be placed on key attributes.

The aim is to secure an existing posi-

tion of an offering and/or the firm.

3. Latent: This LCS is used to establish a

reputation for the offering and/or the

firm.

4. Deposition: Deposition is related to com-

petitive marketing activities, directly or

indirectly, where in the case of indirect

competition, competitors may not al-

ways be mentioned in an advertise-

ment, but may take the form of subtle

advertising, etc.

5. Fortification: This position is regarded

as the reinforcement stage and is aimed

at corporate-wide offering enhance-

ment. It places emphasis on the firm's

offerings and ensures that all offerings

are positioned to have similar images

to each other. However, the firm may

also vary the approach based upon (a)

capacity to introduce multiple prod-

ucts, (b) the prevailing competitive en-

vironment, and (c) the firm's marketing

capabilities.

6. Membership: This is attractive for lower

ranking offering/firm aiming to capi-

talize on a mature or saturated market.

However, proactive companies, who

want to gear themselves as part (or

members) of the leading groups of firms

in the market, may prefer this LCS.

7. Fallow: This position reflects the dor-

mant stage in the life cycle of the of-

fering and/or the firm and may be

pursued as repositioning or harvesting

strategy.

'Source: Blankson and Kalafatis (2001, 2003) and Blank-

sou, Kalafatis, and Long-Tolbert (2002)

^Source: Park, jaworski, and Maclnnis (1986) and Bhat

and Reddy (1998)

^Source: Adopted from Park, jaworski, and Maclnnis (1986);

Hooley, Saunders, and Piercy (1998): Blankson and Kalafa-

tis (2001, 2003); and Blankson, Kalafatis, and Long-Tolbert

(2002).

March 2 0 0 7 JDURORL OF HDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 9 3


Typology of PositioningStrategies

Strategy 1 Top of the range:

Upper class, Top of the range,

Status, Prestigious, Posh

Strategy 2 Service;

Impressive service. Personal

attention, Consider people as

important. Friendly service

Strategy 3 Value for money:

Reasonable price. Value for

money, Affordability

Strategy 4 Reliability:

Durability, Warranty, Safety,

Reliability

Strategy 5 Attractive:

Good aesthetics, Attractive,

Cool, Elegant

Strategy 6 Couantry of origin:

Patriotism, Country of origin

Strategy 7 The Brand Name:

The name of the offering.

Leaders in the market.

Extra features. Choice,

Wide range

Strategy 8 Selectivity:

Discriminatory, Selective in

the choice of customers,

High principles

9 4 JDURORL Dr HDUERTISinG flESEHRCH March 2 0 0 7

Documents

Congruence between Positioning and Brand Advertising