Division of Research December 1983 Graduate School of Business administration The University of Michigan POSITIONING: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND T.XONOM4Y OF ALTERNATIVES Working Paper No. 354 C. Merle Crawford, David J. Urban and Thomas E. Buzas The University of Michigan FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY None of this material is to be quoted or reproduced without the expressed permission of the Division of Research.

POSITIONING: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND TAXONOMY OF ALTERNATIVES C. Merle Crawford David J. Urban and Thomas E. Buzas

ABSTRACT This article reviews the uses of the term "positioning" and offers an improved conceptualization of it. Previous summaries of available positioning alternaves are compared with a new taxonomy of alternatives thdeveloped from a survey of print media, brand names, and packages. Implications of the taxonomy are discussed and hypotheses for future research are presented.

1. THE NEED FOR A REVIEW OF POSITIONING: The term "positioning" has been used in marketing for at least 14 years, ever since it was popularized by Trout and Ries (Ries and Trout 1969, Trout 1971, Trout and Ries 1972a, 1972b, 1972c). It has interested managers and academics and has been applied to consumer products (Kwitney 1971, Wind and Robinson 1972, McGirr 1973, McIntyre 1975, Warwick and Sands 1975, Smith and Lusch 1976, and Ennis 1982), industrial products (Wind and Robinson 1972, Perry, Izraeli, and Perry 1976, Neal 1980), retailers (Ring 1979, King and Ring 1980, Pessemier 1980, Doyle and Sharma 1977, May 1981), other companies (Margolis 1980), and multiple products (Houston and Hanieski 1976). In addition, there have been well over 100 articles about positioning in the popular business press. Some of these articles have concentrated on the measurement of positioning, and have usually involved multidimensional scaling and multiattribute modeling (Shocker and Srinivasan 1979, Huber and Holbrook 1980, Urban and Hauser 1980), as well as other methodologies (Dommeruth 1981). In spite of this coverage in the literature, problems exist with the concept of positioning. First, positioning has been defined differently by different authors, leading to confusion in the usage of the concept (Holmes 1972, Brown and Sims 1976, Sarel 1980, Aaker and Shansby 1982, Ennis 1982). Specifically, some critics question whether positioning can be distinguished from differentiation, segmentation, or image (Greenland 1972, Wademan 1972, Maggard 1976). Second, while many authors have argued in favor of positioning, no one has done a comprehensive review of actual marketing practice to determine the support of positioning in the real world. Third, the literature concerning positioning is largely anecdotal; consequently, no empirical research has been conducted to answer basic questions such as, "Which positioning alternatives do companies use?" or, "How frequently do companies

-2 - reposition?" The lack of a unifying conceptual definition of positioning and the absence of fundamental empirical research on the subject impedes the progress of understanding the impact positioning has in marketing products and services. More complex analyses of the validity of the anecdotal conclusions cannot be pursued without a firm base of knowledge about the subject. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to rectify some of these problems with positioning. We first describe the different uses of the term and offer a critical evaluation of them. In light of this review and appraisal, we will offer our own conceptualization of positioning which we feel will resolve some of the confusion generated by multiple interpretations of the term. liWe will then report the results of a positioning study which generated a taxonomy of positioning alternatives currently being used by marketers. We will also contrast this taxonomy with previous views of available positioning strategies. Finally, we derive several hypotheses for future research from the taxonomy. 2. THE MEANINGS OF POSITIONING: The term "positioning" has been used in at least four different ways in the marketing literature, and numerous modifications of the term have further confounded the issue. Our task in this section of the paper is to describe and evaluate these meanings. A. POSITIONING AS CREATING RELATIVE PERCEPTIONS OR IMAGES: Many authors have viewed positioning as the act of creating a comparison between a product/ service and its competitors. Among the practitioners who use the term in this sense are Trout and Ries (1972a, 1972b) who wrote: Positioning is an against strategy. Positioning is what the advertising does for the product in the consumer's mind.

-3 - Academics also refer to relative perceptions (Wind and Robinson 1972, Kotler 1980, Stiff and Khera 1977, Ring 1979, King and Ring 1980, Pessemier 1977, Sarel 1980, Doyle and Sharma 1977, Perry, Izraeli, and Perry 1976, Neal 1980, Seggev 1982, Hughes 1978, Urban and Hauser 1980). Others prefer to use the term relative image (Stanton 1978, Smith and Lusch 1976, Holmes 1972, Aaker and Shansby 1982). We accept the notion of Trout and Ries that positioning is consummated in the consumer's mind, but we reject the implication that advertising is the sole vehicle for operationalizing positioning. Many other marketing mix elements, such as prestige pricing and exclusive distribution, can "communicate" to consumers in that they assist in forming perceptions. The distinction between creation of relative image versus relative perception is, in our view, superfluous. The same methods are used to measure relative images and relative perceptions. Indeed, one can argue that relative images are a consequence of relative perceptions. Therefore, we need not distinguish between them for our purposes. B. POSITIONING AS CREATING RELATIVE PREFERENCES: Some authors view positioning as the development of reasons for consumer preferences or choice of a product or service over its competitors (e.g. Wind and Robinson 1972, Dalyrymple and Parsons 1976, Dommeruth 1981, and Ennis 1982). They see creating perceptions as part of creating preference. Preferences, however, may or may not follow from perception or image. In our view, positioning requires perception of a comparison among products or services. If there is no perception, there can be no positioning —only attempts at it. Therefore, positioning does not depend on the actual development of preference in the marketplace.

-4 - C. POSITIONING AS DIFFERENTIATION: Several writers equate positioning with differentiation —that is, an attempt to gain a competitive advantage over rivals by promoting real or imagined product/service differences (Smith 1956, Lazer 1971, Maggard 1976). Brown and Sims (1976) go one step further by considering positioning as differentiation, except that positioning occurs within a segment, while differentiation takes place in the whole market. Tying positioning to differences alone is too restrictive. There are many examples of classic positioning efforts which have aimed at increasing perceived similarities as well as differences. The Avis "We Try Harder" campaign moved Avis closer to Hertz (similarity) and away from National (difference). The 7-Up "Uncola" campaign was intended to align 7-Up closer to soft drinks and away from mixers. Thus, there is good reason for emphasizing the role of both differences and similarities in positioning, as opposed to differences alone. D. POSITIONING AS TARGET MARKET SELECTION: Positioning is used by some individuals to refer to the process of selecting a target segment and the appeals that are appropriate for that segment (Buzzell et al. 1972, Davis 1977, Jain 1980). In fact, some researchers have written that positioning is possible only in a segmented marketplace (Brown and Sims 1976, Davis 1977). lie prefer to view target market selection as distinct from positioning. The choice of a target market or segment is a decision about which people will be served by a particular marketing strategy (Kotler 1980, McCarthy 1981, Cravens 1982). Positioning logically follows after the appropriate segment has been determined. When a segmentation approach is not utilized, there is no reason why positioning cannot take place. Creation of perceptions applies equally well to segmented or unsegmented markets. Even in a segmented market,

-5 - the perceptions of the whole market are often important, as when a manager wants to broaden the consumer base for a product. The term positioning has been modified further in terms of several contrasts: E. CATEGORY VS. WITHIN-CATEGORY POSITIONING: Sarel (1980), Ennis (1982) and Aaker and Shansby (1982) distinguish between selecting a product category in which to compete (category positioning) and positioning within that selected category (within-category positioning). This distinction confuses the term because category positioning is in reality what Cravens (1982) calls product-market analysis and selection; that is, the matching of consumer needs to specific products and the decision about which of these product-markets the company will serve. This activity is one that takes place prior to the attempt to position products and services and should not be cast in the same terminology. Within-category positioning is much closer to the real essence of positioning as we will define it. F. SELLING POSITIONING VS. COMMERCIAL POSITIONING: Ennis (1982) distinguishes between the strategic comparison among products (selling positioning) and the commercial communication of that comparison. This latter use of the term substitutes positioning for marketing tactics. Positioning is more of a strategic activity, designed to integrate all the marketing tactics toward one end —the creation of perceptions. Tactical issues, such as methods of communications, do not qualify as positioning, though they are affected by it. G. PRODUCT VS. PERCEPTUAL POSITIONING: Urban and Hauser (1980) and Smith and Lusch (1976) find it useful to separate the actual physical attributes of a product and its psychological or perceptual positioning. We find the latter view much closer to the true meaning of positioning.

-6 - H. POSITIONING VS. POSITION: Sarel (1980) draws a distinction between the management act of positioning and the resulting position achieved —that is, the relative perceptions that result from positioning. This is a useful distinction because it emphasizes the difference between management's intentions and what the consumer actually perceives. Ideally, management's attempt at positioning will result in the actual position of the product/service being what management intended. I. POSITIONING VS. REPOSITIONING: Some writers use positioning only in connection with the establishment of new products, and repositioning to refer to changing perceptions of old products (Cafarelli 1980, Jain 1980). Although this might be a convenient distinction for some, we find no real difference in the meanings of the terms except for the timing element involved. Figure 1 summarizes the views of positioning and our criticisms of them. In light of the preceding analysis, we now offer our view of positioning. (Insert Figure 1 about here). 3. DEFINITION: We view positioning as a strategic activity with two primary objectives. The first goal is the creation of a position for a product service in the mind of the consumer. This position is made up of a bundle of consumer perceptions about the product/service relative to its competitors, and may involve differences or similarities. The second objective is to set the tone for the marketing mix strategies that will communicate these perceptions and provide a common, unifying theme that is consistent across marketing tools. Figure 2 shows graphically where we think positioning belongs in the overall strategic process. (Insert Figure 2 about here.)

-7 - This definition helps to resolve some of the controversy over the use of \the term in the following ways. First, it emphasizes creation of perceptions in consumers' minds and rejects the idea that creation of relative preferences is the criterion for determining if positioning has occurred. Second, it includes both differences and similarities between products/services, therefore dismissing the idea of positioning as differentiation. Third, its place in the strategic process is distinct from, and subsequent to, segmentation. If segmentation does not take place, there is no reason why positioning cannot occur because of its unique role, distinct from segmentation. Fourth, it implies that positioning takes place after product-market selection has occurred. Fifth, it stresses positioning as chiefly a strategic function rather than as a tactical one. Sixth, it incorporates Sarel's (1980) concept of positioning as an act designed to achieve a position in the consumer's mind. Now that we have offered a reasonable conceptualization of positioning, we turn our attention to the other problems cited in the introduction to the article. For this purpose, it is necessary to 1) review the previous typologies of positioning alternatives which have been mostly anecdotal in nature; and 2) present our own taxonomy of alternatives which was derived through research of actual positioning efforts. In addition, we will suggest several hypotheses for future research illustrating how even basic research in the area can provide meaningful direction to the quest for understanding the concept more fully. 4. POSITIONING ALTERNATIVES: Table 1 summarizes the dimensions used in the examples of positioning cited by others and indicates the sources of these examples. The most

-8 - frequently encountered dimensions are features, benefits, and targets, although other dimensions have been proposed, such as manufacturing ingredients or process, market success, company attributes, product category and the status of the product as an alternative to a leader. (Insert Table 1 about here) Although it is possible to group these examples into a few categories, two problems exist with this approach. First, the anecdotal nature of the summary means that the breadth of possibilities may not be indicated. This would be the case if an author intended to illustrate the concept of positioning with an example or two instead of providing a comprehensive list. Furthermore, many factors, such as familiarity, may have influenced the choice of examples. Thus, this summary cannot be relied upon as an exhaustive classification schema. Second, the summary lacks structure. One may find many dimensions underlying positioning examples, and there is no obvious reason to prefer one set of dimensions over another. 5. PREVIOUS TYPOLOGIES: Other difficulties arise when the three previous attempts to classify positioning alternatives are examined. Myers and Shocker (1981) limited their classification to three types of attributes: 1) product characteristics, both physical and pseudo-physical; 2) benefits, direct and indirect, and 3) image, or inferences made about the product user. Myers and Shocker only intended to classify attributes in relation to measurement models. Thus, their classification should not be construed as a complete taxonomy of positioning alternatives. (Insert Table 2 about here)

-9 - Wind (1982) and Aaker and Shansby (1982) did intend, however, to summarize the different types of positioning available to managers. They were largely in agreement, differing on only one type, positioning against a product category. We have already commented in the previous section of this paper that we do not consider selection of a product category as positioning per se. Therefore, if one deletes this aspect of the Aaker and Shansby classification, it becomes virtually identical to the Wind typology. It is interesting to note that these three categorizations are all very recent and are among the first attempts to give some structure to positioning and attribute modeling. As such, they are to be commended, but they have two shortcomings. All three omit dimensions which have been used elsewhere in the literature and in actual marketing practice. For instance, from Tables 1 and 2 we note that both the Aaker and Shansby and the Wind schemes do not include positioning with respect to function, a dimension that is part of the Myers and Shocker typology. At the same time, the similarity of the Wind and the Aaker and Shansby classifications raises a serious question about how much additional knowledge can be gained by a proliferation of anecdotally generated taxonomies. What,is needed is research about actual marketing practice in order to determine if these conceptual classifications are comprehensive enough to capture the wide range of alternatives. A more detailed taxonomy based on this type of research should provide managers with a better feeling for the positioning possibilities at their disposal when developing marketing strategies. 6. PROPOSED TAXONOMY: The authors set out to develop a new taxonomy of positioning alternatives based on an analysis of positioning practice currently in use. Details and results of the study are described below.

-10 - A. METHOD OVERVIEW: The taxonomy was derived from a longitudinal study of positioning alternatives used within a product category. This taxonomy was then applied to a cross-sectional sample of industrial products, consumer products, and consumer services to assess its versatility in categorizing a wide variety of positioning schemes. Results of the cross-sectional study are particularly useful in developing hypotheses for future research. B. LONGITUDINAL STUDY: The longitudinal study initially followed positioning in three industries: shampoo, dog food, and computer graphics terminals. The dog food industry shifted the bulk of its media spending from print to television, thereby making data collection too expensive. In the computer graphics terminal industry, product changes caused frequent changes in advertising, making it difficult to attribute a position to a product. These problems with the dog food and computer graphics terminal industries led us to focus on the shampoo industry. The shampoo industry is characterized by frequent new product introductions, high promotion expenditures on print advertisements, and a large number of aggressive competitors. All of these factors should heighten the importance of positioning in marketing strategies and provide good examples of positioning practice. All advertisements for shampoos in Seventeen, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, Teen, and several other magazines from July 1979 to September 1982 were studied. Brand names and package designs were also matched with the print ads and examined for consistency by the authors. The criterion for determining the product's intended positioning was that the advertising, brand name, and package have one predominant theme. This operationalization

-11 - is in line with our view of positioning in that one of its major purposes is to achieve consistency among methods. This theme was considered to be the positioning intended by management for the product. If a shampoo did not have a predominant theme, this was indicated in the data, but this occurrence was rare. This survey of shampoo advertisements, brand names, and packages led to the development of a new taxonomy of positioning alternatives. C. RESULTS: LONGITUDINAL STUDY Table 3 reports the taxonomy which emerged from the longitudinal study. The taxonomy began as a summary of the positionings described in the literature, but evolved as we studied the various positionings in use in the shampoo industry. Table 4 summarizes the empirical results of the study. (Insert Table 3 about here) (Insert Table 4 about here) Positioning alternatives fall into two broad classes: attributes and surrogates. Attributes include features, functions, and benefits which are related to one another. For example, "fluoride" is related to "cavity prevention." In contrast, surrogates stand in place of features, functions, and benefits. Surrogates were added to the taxonomy because of the need to account for the persistent appearance of nonattribute positionings. Many marketers prefer to address a product's attributes directly by referring to particular features, functions, or benefits. Others, however, do not state the attributes directly, but apparently prefer the consumer to infer them. This option leads to the use of surrogates like the following: "This product was specially designed for you." (target) "This product is the same as competitor A." (competitor) "This product is what you want because this expert endorses it." (expert)

-12 - One danger of using the surrogate approach is that a consumer may infer the wrong attributes —the ones not intended by management. Advantages of using the surrogate include 1) the quick communication of many attributes about a product/service; and 2) the opportunity for different purchasers to interpret attributes in accordance with their own needs. For products with little physical differentiation, surrogates encourage perceptual differentiation. Several categories need elaboration. One occasionally hears of positioning by use, such as, "Our car is for the commuter." We see positioning by use as a form of targeting by behavior because use specifies particular behaviors for which the product is appropriate. Another frequently mentioned alternative is positioning relative to a class of competitors. This is a variety of what we have termed positioning to a competitor in the surrogate classification. We found the use of this alternative rare, so we did not subdivide the competitor category. Another interesting surrogate is manufacture, where we have distinguished between manufacture materials and the attribute feature. The difference is that manufacture materials refers to a substance that loses its identity in the product, while a feature retains its identity. For instance, a cooking oil made of corn oil is positioned by feature, but a cake mix which includes finely ground flour is positioned by material. Some positionings, such as low price, seem half feature and half benefit. Our rule for handling these cases is that if the positioning is explained relative to a use, such as "low price," or "reliable," then it is benefit positioning. If the positioning is not relative to a particular use, such as "49 cents" or "travels at 100 miles per hour," then it is feature positioning.

-13 - D. CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY: Having established the taxonomy in the longitudinal study, we decided to apply it to a cross-sectional study of a wide variety of consumer and industrial products and services. We set out to find the positionings of 100 consumer products, 35 consumer services, and 100 industrial products and services. The consumer product advertisements were taken from Good Housekeeping, the consumer services from Time, and the industrial products and services from Fortune. All materials came from the period of November 1981 to January 1982. The method of analysis followed the same pattern as the longitudinal survey. Table 5 illustrates that our taxonomy captured the complexity of positioning types quite well. Part way through the cross-sectional study, we had the opportunity to study 18 months of a weekly Indian magazine equivalent to Time or Newsweek. From these magazines, we compiled all shampoo advertisements for analysis. We believed that this could be an additional check on the generality of our taxonomy, and found the taxonomy sufficiently robust for classifying the shampoo advertisements. The results of the classification, also reported in Table 5, indicate that our taxonomy may be useful in studying cross-cultural positioning efforts and marketers' positioning strategies in developing countries. E. METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS: The longitudinal study which produced the taxonomy contains some methodological limitations, as most exploratory studies do. In this section we highlight what we believe are the major limitations of the technique. It should be stated at the outset that cost restrictions and considerations of confidentiality prevented us from utilizing more elaborate data

-14 - collection procedures. For instance, an alternative approach to analyzing the advertisements, packages, and brand names ourselves would have been to contact the companies involved and ask them for their product's positioning. We felt this alternative was inappropriate, given the expense in time and other resources needed to make contacts. We also anticipated having difficulties determining who would be the right person to ask about positioning for a given product. Another issue concerns the scope of positioning. Since positioning is designed to provide a degree of consistency to a firm's marketing effort for a product/service across different marketing mix elements, it could be argued that examination of print ads, packages, and brand names alone were not sufficient to determine positioning. We felt, however, that since we were looking primarily for consistency across methods as evidence of positioning, this consistency would indicate positioning if it had been intended. Future research could check the current taxonomy for a sample of products/services by incorporating more variables representing pricing and distribution in the search for consistency across marketing tools, in combination with the advertising and product variables already utilized in this study. Some researchers may object to the authors analyzing the positioning alternatives themselves, rather than employing a panel of judges instructed by the authors. The primary justification for this "self-analysis" of the data was cost of selecting, training, and occupying the time of the judges. To offset the potential bias which the authors might have introduced into the analysis, a reliability assessment was made by having the authors independently categorize 27 advertisements and select the single best category for positioning. The articles were selected according to the following rule: the first five full-page advertisements from two issues each of Time,

-15 - Fortune, and Good Housekeeping (5 x 2 x 3 = 30). Three ads were dropped because they were company rather than product advertisements. Agreement between the authors was high, as they concurred on 24 of the 27 advertisements (89%). Finally, more rigorous statistical analysis of the data was not employed because we did not consider our samples to be true statistical samples. Any attempt to use such techniques would have been inappropriate because we could not ensure that our sampling fulfilled the requirements assumed by most statistical methods. N 7. HYPOTHESES FOR FUTURE STUDY: Table 6 shows the consistency of positioning for shampoo brands over the period of the longitudinal study. When combined with the results from Tables 4 and 5, we can highlight a number of possible hypotheses for testing. Hypothesis 1: The taxonomy results from Table 5 show that for industrial products and consumer products, the same percentage of attribute positionings to surrogate positionings is found in each group (71% to 29%). Therefore, one might test the notion that product type (industrial vs. consumer) does not influence the range of positioning alternatives available. Hypothesis 2: A fairly large difference exists between consumer services and industrial services in the use of surrogates (31% to 13%). This suggests a test of the hypothesis that surrogates are more frequently used with consumer services as opposed to industrial services. Hypothesis 3: From Table 6, it is evident that some shampoo brands maintained stable positionings (e.g. Farrah Fawcett) and others sought to reposition (Prell and Vidal Sassoon). In fact, some companies choosing to reposition appear to do it more than once. Thus, the following hypothesis

-16 - could be analyzed: companies repositioning their products are likely to try several repositionings before a satisfactory dimension is found. Hypothesis 4: Perusal of Table 6 and a comparison of new product positionings with established product positionings reveals an additional test: established products in mature markets, such as the shampoo market, are more likely to be positioned on benefits, while new entrants use surrogates due to the pre-empting of worthwhile benefits. Hypothesis 5: Table 6 also indicates that established products (Head and Shoulders) do not often react to new product entries by revising their positioning. Thus, one could test the view that market participants cannot be expected to reposition as a consequence of new brands entering the market. Hypothesis 6: A comparison of Tables 4 and 5 shows a marked difference in the emphasis on positioning to a demographic target. Therefore, we propose testing the idea that marketers in developing countries are much more likely to use this type of positioning than their counterparts in more advanced countries. If this hypothesis is confirmed, then exploration of the reasons for the difference could have implications for international marketing, particularly when a firm in an advanced country is interested in moving a given product or brand into a developing society. 8. DISCUSSION AND SUMMAIAY: Our knowledge and understanding of the concept of positioning has reached a threshold point. The discussion and evaluation of the conceptual definitions of positioning and the description of the anecdotal positioning typologies earlier in this paper emphasize that little can be gained without empirical research of the concept. Without a commitment to this type of research, managers and academics will be confronted with more confusing definitions and more redundant typologies of positioning.

-17 - This paper dramatically showed what additional empirical research can yield. First, comprehensive examination of current marketing practice led to the construction of a taxonomy of positioning alternatives that was more comprehensive and versatile than previous taxonomies which were not based on such research. Second, although the longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were exploratory in nature, it was shown that these types of studies are useful in generating hypotheses for more rigorous testing. The managerial and scientific implications of this paper are clear. The taxonomy developed can give the manager a full range of positioning alternatives for considerationr. Testing of the hypotheses listed, particularly hypotheses 3 and 5, could ultimately offer valuable information to managers about the consequences of repositioning and the effects of new entrants on current products' positioning strategies. As far as academics are concerned, this area appears to be a rich one for future attempts at understanding positioning better. Laboratory experiments would be justified, for example, in testing consumer perceptions of product positioning strategies. Field studies and surveys of consumers and managers could easily compare the congruence of management's intended positionings vs. actual consumer perceptions of them. More work is also needed on the link between positioning and the marketing mix elements designed to operationalize it. This thrust could offer opportunities for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of various mix strategies in stimulating consumer perceptions. The key point is that this research is literally waiting to be performed. Marketers have developed an impressive array of research techniques that compare quite favorably with methods used in other social sciences. The

-18 -positioning area and its importance to marketing management offer the chance for significant contributions to the field by the use of those techniques.

-19 - FIGURE 1 ISSUE KEY POINT AUTHORS CRITICISM Positioning as creating relative preferences Positioning development reasons for preferences is the of consumer of choice. Wind/Robinson 1972 Dalyrymple/Parsons 1976 Dommeruth 1981 Wind 1982 Ennis 1982 Preference does not necessarily follow from perception. Positioning as differentiation Positioning as differentiation within a segment Positioning as target market selection Category vs. Within-Category Positioning Selling vs. Commercial Positioning Product vs. Perceptual Positioning Positioning promotes differences. Positioning occurs within a segment, differentiation in the whole market. Positioning is the process of selecting a target market and appeals appropriate for the segment. Category positioning is selecting a product category in which to compete. Withincategory positioning takes place in the selected category. Selling positioning is strategic comparison of products. Commercial positioning is communication of the comparison. Physical characteristics distinct from psychological or perceptual positioning. Smith 1956 Lazer 1971 Maggard 1976 Brown & Sims 1976 Buzzell et al. 1972 Davis 1977 Jain 1980 Positioning promotes similarities as well as differences. Segmentation not necessary for positioning. Positioning normally follows target market selection. Category positioning is product market selection —occurs before positioning. Sarel Ennis Aaker 1980 1982 & Shansby 1982 Ennis 1982 Confuses tactics with strategy — positioning is strategic. Urban & Hauser 1980 Smith & Lusch 1976 Positioning deals more chiefly with perceptions.

FIGURE 2 I I' I' Analysis of key problems and opportunities facing the firm Development-of business objectives | Analysis of planning units I Marketing objectives for each unit | I I 1 Segmentation and target market selection 1 Major thrust of - >| positioning Provision of mix — >| coordination and consistency Positioning strategy I Marketing mix strategies I I I I Product | I I Distribution I ~~1~~~~~ I Promotion | I I Pricing | - I Tactical decisions | Culmination of >1 — Position in consumer's mind positioning effort

-21 - Table 1 Positioning Dimensions Discussed in the Literature Feature............... Aaker and Shansby 1982, Ennis 1982, Jain 1980, Myers and Shocker 1981, Wind 1982, Cafarelli 1980, Hughes 1978, Maggard 1976, Grayson 1973, Warick and Sands 1975. Function............... Myers and Shocker 1981, Grayson 1973. Benefit.............* Same authors as Feature above plus Fennell 1976. Target User............... Uses................ Manufacturing Ingredients........ Process............ Success................ Aaker and Shansby 1982, Ennis 1982, Jain 1980, Myers and Shocker 1981, Wind 1982, Fennell 1976, Maggard 1976, Brown and Sims 1976, Warwick and Sands 1973, Kwitney 1971. Aaker and Shansby 1982, Ennis 1982, Jain 1980, Wind 1982, Hughes 1978, Fennell 1976, Brown and Sims 1976, Grayson 1973. Aaker and Shansby 1982. Aaker and Shansby 1982. Brown and Sims 1976, Kwitney 1971, Trout and Ries 1972a, 1972b, 1972c. Company................ Stiff and Khera 1977. Category........... Sarel 1980, Aaker and Shansby 1982. As alternative to leader.......... Wind 1982, Brown and Sims 1976.

-22 - Table 2 Typologies for Positioning Alternatives Myers and Wind Aaker and Shocker Shansby 1981 1982 1982 Feature X X X Benefits X X X Image X X X User X X Use X X Against Competitor X X Against Product Class X

-23 - Table 3 Taxonomy of Positioning Alternatives ALTERNATIVES DEFINITIONS ATTRIBUTES Feature..................... Function.................... Benefit..................... Direct................... Indirect.................. A property of an object which causes a benefit. The mode of operation or performance, such as "it coats your hair with protein." A service or well-being which derives from the product. An immediate benefit such as "stronger hair" or reliability. A benefit which follows from a direct benefit such as "sex-appeal from white teeth." SURROGATES Competitor.................. Endorsement................. Expert.................... Emulative................. Experience................ Other Market.............. Bandwagon................. Manufacture............... Materials................ Process.................. Parentage.................. Company................... Brand... @........ Rank....................... Target...................... Demographic.............. Behavioral...*9*9.... Psychographic....9..,,,00 A product is the same as another. Value is imputed by a third party's acceptance. The third party is technically qualified to judge the product. The third party is a celebrity. Extensive use by others attests to value. Use in another market, as Johnson's Baby Shampoo. Use by a select, but not expert, group, as the favorite airline of frequent travelers. How the product is made. The ingredients or materials. The process by which made, as with hand-rolled cigars. Something about the source of the product implies quality. The company has proven skills. The brand is known. Leadership implies acceptance either by market share or quantity sold. The product was specially designed for a particular group. Defined by age, sex, or other demographic criteria. Defined by use or other behavioral criteria. Defined by life-style or other psychographic criteria.

-24 - Table 4 Empirical Results: Longitudinal Study Positioning U.S. Shampoos Alternatives Percent ATTRIBUTES 56 Feature 4 Function 4 Benefit 48 Direct 44 Indirect 4 SURROGATES 44 Competitor 0 Endorsement 7 Expert 5 Emulative 2 Experience 0 Other Market 0 Bandwagon 0 Manufacture 26 Ingredients 26 Process 0 Parentage 2 Company 0 Brand 2 Rank 0 Target 9 Behavioral 2 Demographic 7 Psychographic 0 Totals 100% Numbers 46

-25 - Table 5 Empirical Results: Cross-Sectional Study Consumer Industrial Indian Positioning Products Services Products Services Shampoos Alternatives Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent ATTRIBUTES 71 69 71 87 57 Feature 26 49 32 52 21 Function 0 0 0 0 0 Benefit 45 20 39 35 36 Direct 43 17 38 35 29 Indirect 2 3 1 0 7 SURROGATES 29 31 29 13 43 Competitor 0 0 0 0 0 Endorsement 6 0 8 0 7 Expert 5 0 8 0 7 Emulative 1 0 0 0 0 Experience 3 3 3 0 0 Other Market 3 0 2 0 0 Bandwagon 0 3 1 0 0 Manufacture 5 0 1 0 0 Ingredients 5 0 1 0 0 Process 0 0 0 0 0 Parentage 7 17 10 0 7 Company 1 17 10 0 0 Brand 6 0 0 0 7 Rank 1 0 4 6 0 Target 7 11 3 7 29 Behavioral 7 6 2 0 0 Demographic 0 5 1 7 29 Psychographic 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Numbers 100 35 69 31 14

-26 - Table Nature 6 and Impact of New Shampoo Positionings** Brand July Jan Jan Jan Sept. 1979 1980 1981 1982 1982 Agree Body-on-Tap Breck Clairol Condition Faberge Organic Farah Fawcett Gee Your Hair Head/Shoulders Prell Silkience Ultra Max Vidal Sassoon Wella Balsam Conair Johnson's Baby Flex Spring Feeling Alberto Vo5 Jhirmack Style II Head/Shoulders Conditioning Pert Freeman Enhance Henna Jheri Redding Vidal Sassoon For Sensitive Hair Nestle's Jojoba Heavenly Body For Oily Hair Only B --- —-—. --- —---- --------------------- B --- —-------------------------— * B —,- B2 --- — -* B --- -----— 2 --- —----- B --------- -—.. -..-..-................. E --- —------------ -----------— 2 --- —B --- —--— _ --- —--— ^ --- —B --- — ~B2 —~ --- — ---------— ~ B2~ ---T --- —--— * --- — B ~........B2...... —B2~.. B --- —--------— F2 — ------------- T.............. Fn3 - F1 ~. —B2 ----— F2 —. MI --— * --- —--------- M1 -----—. — - Enl M1 B1 DLi nz '14 T1 ---------- T1 --- —------ E1 ----------- T1 ----------- M B1 T1 Notes: 1 New Product; 2 Revised Positioning; 3 First Appearance:? Positioning unclear. See Supplement for Positioning codes. * If no advertising is found for one year, the entry is terminated. **Brands without sustained advertising eliminated.

-27 - Supplement to Table 6 Specific Positionings for Shampoos Brand Agree Alberto Vo5 Body on Tap Breck Clairol Condition Classy Curl Conair Cream of Nature Enhance Faberge Faberge Organic Farah Fawcett Flex For Oily Hair Only Freeman Gee Your Hair Smells Terrific Head and Shoulders Head and Shoulders Conditioning Formula Heavenly Body Henna Jheri Redding Jhirmack Johnson's Baby Nature's Family Natures Organic Plus Nestle's Egyptian Henna Nestle's Jojoba Pert Prell S. Curl Silkience Spring Feeling Positioning Direct benefit: Escape the greasies. Manufacture: Contains natural henna. Direct Benefit: Body. (1) Direct Benefit: Light-conditioned hair. (2) Indirect Benefit: Draws attention of males. Direct Benefit: End to flabby hair. Direct Benefit: Beautiful hair. Function: Coats hair uniquely. Direct Benefit: Beautiful hair. Target, Demographic: People with overworked hair. Manufacture: Contains various special ingredients such as jojoba and henna. (1) Direct Benefit: Shine and smell. (2) Parentage, Brand: Great name. Endorsement, Emulation. (1) Feature: Full line of types. (2) Direct Benefit: Several. Target, Demographic: People with oily hair Manufacture, Ingredients: Natural. Direct Benefit: Hair smells fresh. Direct Benefit: Controls dandruff. Direct Benefit: Body. Direct Benefit: Body. Manufacture, Ingredient: Contains natural henna. Endorsement, Expert: Professional salons. Endorsement, Expert: Professional salons. Function: Gentle. Manufacture, Ingredients: Made from natural ingredients. Manufacture, Ingredients: Made from natural ingredients. No clear positioning. Manufacture, Ingredient: Contains jojoba oil. (1) Direct Benefit: Hair bounces and waves. (2) Manufacture, Ingredient: Secret ingredient. (1) Indirect Benefit: Fresh hair attracts men. (2) Direct Benefit:' Freshness that lasts. (3) Direct Benefit: Full, thick, fluffy hair. Direct Benefit: Natural looking curls. Direct Benefit: Beats grease without beating the ends. Manufacturing, Ingredients: Made with pure spring water.

-28 -Supplement to Table 6 —Continued Brand Positioning Style II Manufacture, Ingredients: Three secret ingredients. Ultra Max Target, Behavioral: For people who blow-dry their hair. Vidal Sassoon (1) Direct Benefit: Beautiful hair. (2) Direct Benefit: Sensuous hair. Vidal Sassoon for Target, Demographic: People with sensitive hair. Sensitive Hair Village Natural Manufacture, Ingredient: Contains natural aloe vera. Wella Balsam (1) Direct Benefit: Repairs split ends. (2) Feature: Available in three forms.

-29 - REFERENCES 1. Aaker, David and J. Gary Shansby (1982), "Positioning Your Product," Business Horizons, 25 (May-June), 56-62. 2. Brown, Herbert and J. Taylor Sims (1976), "Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Market Positioning as Alternative Marketing Strategies," in Marketing: 1776-1976 and Beyond, Kenneth Bernhardt, ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 483-87. 3. Buzzell, Robert, Robert Nourse, John Matthews, and Theodore Levitt (1972), Marketing: A Contemporary Analysis, New York: McGraw Hill. 4. Cafarelli, Eugene (1980), Developing New Products and Repositioning Mature Brands, New York: Wiley. 5. Cravens, David W. (1982), Strategic Marketing, Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 6. Dalrymple, Douglas and Leonard Parsons (1976), Marketing Management, Santa Barbara, Ca.: Wiley. 7. Davis, Linden (1977), "Positioning is Key to Marketing, Says Trout; Yes, But It's Perceptual Positioning: Davis," Marketing News, 11 (November 18), 1. 8. Dommeruth, William (1981), "Using Composition Rules for Better Product Positioning," Business, 31 (July), 16-24. 9. Doyle, Peter and Alok Sharma (1977), "A Model for Strategic Positioning in Retailing," Chicago: American Marketing Association, 10-15. 10. Ennis, F. Beavin (1982), "Positioning Revisited," Advertising Age, 53 (March 15), M43+. 11. Fennell, Geraldine (1976), "Consumers' Perceptions of the Product-Use Situation," Journal of Marketing, 42 (Summer), 38-47. 12. Grayson, Suzanne (1979), "Fragrance Marketers Seek Their Niche," Chemical Week, 12 (Sept. 12), p. 53. 13. Greenland, Leo (1972), "Is This the Era of Positioning?," Advertising Age, 43 (July 10) 43-46. 14. Holmes, John (1972), "Profitable Product Positioning," MSU Business Topics, 21 (Summer), 27-32. 15. Houston, Franklin and John Hanieski (1976), "Multiple Product Positioning," Journal of Advertising, 5 (Winter), 38-44. 16. Huber, Joel and Morris Holbrook (1980), "Using Attribute Ratings for Product Positioning: Some Distinctions Among Compositional Approaches," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (November), 507-16.

-30 - 17. Hughes, G. David (1978), Marketing Management, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 18. Jain, Subhash (1980), Marketing Planning and Strategy, Cincinnati, Ohio: Southwestern. 19. King, Charles and Lawrence Ring (1980), "Market Positioning Across Retail Fashion Institutions: A Comparative Analysis of Store Types," Journal of Retailing, 56 (Spring), 36-55. 20. Kotler, Philip (1980), Marketing Management, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 21. Kwitney, Johnathon (1971), "Positoning Ads," Wall Street Journal, 180 (December 13), 1+. 22. Lazer, William (1971), Marketing Management, New York: Wiley. 23. Maggard, John (1976), "Positioning Revisited," Journal of Marketing, 42 (Summer), 63-66. 24. Margolis, W. P. (1980), "Positioning the Company: A Challenge in the 1980's," Advertising Age, 51 (December 15), 46. 25. May, Eleanor (1981), "Product Positioning and Segmentation Strategy: Adaptable to Retail Stores?" Theory in Retailing: Traditional and Nontraditional Sources, Ronald Stampfl et al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 144-55. 26. McGirr, William (1973), "The Taster's Choice Story: Establish a Strong Product Position," Marketing Times, 11 (November), 26-29. 27. McCarthy, E. Jerome (1981), Basic Marketing, Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 28. McIntyre, David (1975), "Multinational Positioning Strategy," Columbia Journal of World Business, 10 (Fall), 106-10. 29. Myers, James and Allan Shocker (1981), "The Nature of Product-Related Attributes," Research in Marketing, 5, 211-36. 30. Neal, William (1980), "Strategic Product Positoning," Business, 30 (May-June), 34-42. 31. Perry, Michael, Dor Izraeli, and Arnon Perry (1976), "Image Change as a Result of Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (February), 45-50. 32. Pessemier, Edgar (1977), Product Management, New York: Wiley. 33. __ (1980), "Store Image and Positioning," Journal of Retailing, 56 (Spring), 95-106.

-31 - 34. Ries, Al and Jack Trout (1981), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. 35. (1969), "Positioning: A Game People Play in Today's Me-Too Marketplace," Industrial Marketing, 54 (June), 51-55. 36. Ring, Lawrence (1979), "Retail Positioning: A Multiple Discriminant Approach, Journal of Retailing, 55 (Spring), 26-36. 37. Sarel, Dan (1980), "Product Positioning —A Reassessment," in Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Charles Lamb and Patrick Dunne, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 116-19. 38. Seggev, Eli (1982), "Testing Persuasion by Strategic Positioning," Journal of Advertising Research, 22 (February), 37-44. 39. Shocker, Allan and V. Srinivasan (1979), "Multiattribute Approaches for Product Concept Evaluation and Generation: A Critical Review," Journal of Marketing Research 16 (May), 159-180. 40. Smith, Robert and Robert Lusch (1976), "How Advertising Can Position a Brand," Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (February), 37-42. 41. Smith, Wendell (1956), "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies," Journal of Marketing, 20 (July), 3-8. 42. Stanton, William (1978), Fundamentals of Marketing, New York: McGraw Hill. 43. Stiff, Ronald and Inder Khera (1977), "Industrial Product Positioning," Industrial Marketing Management, 6 (No. 2), 119-23. 44. Trout, Jack (1971), "Positioning Revisited: Why Didn't GE and RCA Listen?," Industrial Marketing, 56 (November), 116-18. 45. and Al Ries (1972a), "How to Position Your Product," Advertising Age, 43 (May 8), 114-16. 46. _________ (1972b), "Positioning Cuts Through Chaos in Marketplace," Advertising Age, 43 (May 1), 51-54. 47. (1972c), "The Positioning Era Cometh," Advertising Age, 43 (April 24), 35-38. 48. (1979), "Positioning: Ten Years Later," Advertising Age, 50 (July 16), 79+. 49. Urban, Glen and John Hauser (1980), Design and Marketing of New Products, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

-32 -50. Wademan, Victor (1972), "Panacea of Positioning —Another Formula for Getting Things Done," Industrial Marketing, 61 (August), 34-37. 51. Warwick, Kenneth and Paul Sands (1975), "Product Positioning: Problems and Concerns," University of Michigan Business Review, 27 (November), 17-20. 52. Wind, Yoram, (1982), Product Policy: Concepts, Methods and Strategy, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 53. and Patrick Robinson (1972), "Product Positioning: An Application of Multidimensional Scaling," in Attitude Research in Transition, Russell Haly, ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 155-75.