Defining the Concept of Positioning

Defining the Concept of Positioning Charles Blankson, Ph.D. Department of Marketing & Logistics 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Introduction • Positioning is considered by academics and practitioners to be one of the fundamental components of modern marketing management (Kotler, 2000; Porter, 1996; Hooley and Saunders, 1993; McKenna, 1986). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Introduction contd. • Evidence in the literature supports the positive relationship between well-formulated and clearly defined positioning activities and company performance (Brooksbank, 1994; Devlin et al., 1995; Porter, 1996). • Dovel (1990) contends that: “…Positioning shouldn’t be just a part of your strategy. It should be the backbone of your business…” 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Introduction contd. • Despite the importance of the concept and interest attached to positioning by researchers, so far, there appears to be lack of coherent definitions. • No single universally accepted definition • Lack of appreciation of the concept of positioning. • Confusion surrounding the meaning of the concept and its operationalization. • The latter may be attributed to the absence of a clear theoretical basis for positioning (Rigger, 1995) and partly due to the simplicity accorded to the meaning of positioning (Pollay, 1985). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Introduction contd. • Such predicament was first expressed in the writing of Aaker and Shansby (1982) who stated that: • “positioning means different things to different people” • This is supported by Lamb and Cravens (1990) who claim that: • “many managers consider positioning to be simply a promotional task” • As for marketing scholars, most regard positioning merely as “positioning maps” 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Introduction contd. • As was written by Rigger (1995), the absence of a rigorous definition is inhibiting both practitioner and academic scholars in developing appropriate means of operationalizing the concept of positioning. • We believe that the latter has paved the way for the “fuzzy” conclusions about positioning models (Ehrenberg and Barnard, 1997). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Aim • The basic aim of this paper is to update the key issues surrounding the definition of the concept of positioning by presenting a definitional review of the concept. • Finally, this paper will attempt to put forward a tentative working definition. 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Definitions of Positioning • An exhaustive review of marketing textbooks reveals several overlapping terms and descriptions associated with the concept. • Positioning • Position • Position of the product • Product positioning • Market positioning • Brand positioning 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Themes ascribed to Positioning • Review of 111 marketing related textbooks refers to books published between 1969 and 1999 and who have devoted chapters/sections to the concept. • 1. Positioning Strategy(ies) (45 writers: 41%) • 2. Product Positioning (44 out of the 111 authors: 40%) • 3. Brand Positioning (15 writers: 14%) • 4. Services Positioning (6 authors: 5%) • 5. Advertising Positioning (4 authors: 4%) • 6. Market Positioning (3 writers: 3%). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Themes ascribed to Positioning contd. • More specifically, out of 314 citations (i.e., the number of times discussed in the Chapters/Sections), • 206 are attributed to Positioning, • Position(s) was cited 77 times, • Product positioning 16 times, • Product position(s) 9 times and • Market positioning only once. • The various terminology seems to be several sides of the same coin and complement each other (Arnott, 1992). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

The Concept of Positioning • Following review and synthesis of authors’ descriptions of the concept, it was decided to adopt Arnott’s (1992, 1993) definition since it encapsulates both • (a) operational and strategic perspectives and • (b) managerial and consumer perspectives. 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

A tentative working definition of Positioning • Arnott (1992, 1993) formally defines positioning that: • “…it is the deliberate, proactive, iterative process of defining, measuring, modifying, and monitoring consumer perceptions of a marketable offering…” • Iterative process of managing the offering, • Requires deliberate and proactive actions of the marketer/advertiser, • Involves decisions at conceptual, strategic and operational levels and reflect managerial/organizational deliberations and finally, • Assessment of the competition and target market. 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Conclusions • This paper has attempted to present a review of definitions of the concept and has proposed a working definition. • It appears that the word “positioning” has diversity of meaning and appreciation leading to considerable ambiguity. • The paper reveals that authors adopt no single definition and prefer their own description of the concept. • As was noted by Bainsfair (1990) • “…positioning is one of those words which everybody uses but few people understand…”. • Finally, we believe that the absence of rigorous definitions is inhibiting practitioner and academic scholars in developing appropriate means of measuring the operationalization of positioning (Rigger, 1995). 2003 AMTP Conference, Hilton Head, SC, March 27-29

Defining the Concept of Positioning