How Behavioral Science can Supercharge (your) Brand Positioning - Richard Bordenave, CEO - BVA Nudge Unit Singapore

How Behavioral Science
can Supercharge (your)
  Brand Positioning

 Richard Bordenave, CEO - BVA Nudge Unit Singapore

Positioning: a science of perception?

The art of positioning was created by Al Ries & Jack Trout in the early 80’s with their book
“Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind” (Ries & Trout, 1985), during the golden age of television and
mass-retail. Their method would suggest that positioning is about “manipulating what’s already in
the mind”, “retying connections that already exist” and “finding an open hole in the mind and
become the first brand to fill it”. In some sense, their approach was an anticipation of the Brain
System 1 metaphor: the intuitive system that behavioural scientists explore in order to show how
most of our decisions are rapidly made: by activating simple associations and heuristics.

Here is an example of a typical brand positioning statement:

                         Figure 1: Brand Positioning Statement © Beloved Brands - https://belovedbrands.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/brand-positioning-statement/

In terms of advertising strategy, Ries and Trout would insist on having a brand associated with only
one key word in the prospect’s mind, acknowledging that simplicity always beats complexity in the
way people sort brands in their head. They would also recommend “hammering” the message with
multiple repetition to make sure it gets in (when TV was the dominant medium). This way, people
would make instant associations that build differentiation and preferences such as: “Avis, we try
harder”, “Nike just do it”, or “M&M melts in your mouth, not in your hands”.

Ries and Trout’s influence on marketing practices has been tremendous, and positioning statements
are now classic frameworks that can be found in brand bibles - next to brand missions, purpose,

values and other equity assets. Derived frameworks are still in use today, and they have been
recycled to help start-ups formulate their “elevator” pitch. (Moore, 2014)

                                   Figure 2: Game Storming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Gamechangers © Gray, Brown & Macanufo (2012)

However, this approach of betting only on influencing preference by manipulating perceptions, has
led brand managers to focus on talking about themselves (“my product, my benefit, my difference”)
and less about how they help their consumers. We have therefore seen big organizations slowly
allowing brand stories to develop further away from product reality or retail experience –
consequently leaving room for new competitors to fill this gap.

Positioning is all about behavior
With digital transformation and new ways of reaching consumers in a media landscape dramatically
changing, new models have emerged. New players have started to disrupt traditional markets where
product differentiation had become minimal, and pricing overly expensive. Many legacy brands
didn’t see the threat as they were still competing on brand stories to defend their competitive
advantage while relying too much on premiumisation strategies (e.g. the 6th blade on the razor) to
drive value.

Start-ups have realized they could capture this consumer value by going direct to consumers and
offering better value for money. They have refocused on what matters most to satisfy consumers:
serve their “jobs-to-be-done” in a better way than current solutions (Christensen, 2005). This is how
new value proposition frameworks have emerged (see Figure 3 below: derived from positioning, but
with an essential change in perspective. It is not about what a brand has to say, and how to make it
persuasive, but about what brands are doing with their products and services to help solve
consumers’ daily issues; changing - if needed - the whole brand model and value delivery system.
(Osterwalder, Smith, Pigneur, Bernada, & Papadakos, 2014)

Figure 3: Value Proposition Template © Osterwalder, A., Smith, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernada, G., & Papadakos, T. (2014)

A good example of this is the Dollar Shave Club, a lifestyle club brand offering cheaper grooming
products for men. Their product quality is consistent thanks to subscription & home-delivery system,
so men can always feel at their best. Its value delivery model tackles excessive retail pricing as well as
the discomfort of stretching the use of current razor until the next purchase. It removes the friction
of frequent store visits, as well as the risk of falling short. Its marketing campaign focuses on service
outcomes, adding lifestyle and a humorous tone, making it distinctive and viral. As the name says,
men would understand that you get a lot better service from your dollars.

The Evolution of Marketing Frameworks: where do you stand?
This evolution reveals that traditional positioning statements used to be a persuasion scheme. A
communication framework that serves mainly brand interests which:

    •   aim to change customer attitude using benefits and “reason-why’s” attributes e.g. “here is
        my promise, believe me it’s good for you because…”
    •   aim to win preference with selling arguments e.g. “it’s different, it’s better, it’s for you…”
    •   start with a consumer insight i.e. a tension, a problem, a trade-off that serves as a
        springboard for dramatizing a brand solution
However, in practice, it was not rare to see positioning statements trying to justify brand relevance
where the problem was formulated after the brand promise was created.

In contrast, a Value Proposition Framework is more of a behavioural problem-solving scheme, aiming
at improving customer experience and creating value through:

    •       a goal-centred approach focusing on the outcome, the jobs-to-be-done not the task or
            functionalities: what is my customer trying to achieve? What jobs is he hiring my product
            for? This “jbbd” formulation has helped reverse the perspective: starting with the
            consumer utility.
    •       forcing marketers to become obsessed with improving experience (not brand image, as
            this is only a resulting factor) e.g. “how can your brand HELP me, the consumer, improve
            my everyday life? By reducing pains ? By creating alternative gains?”

This framework is first and foremost inspired by behavioural observations and an in-depth
knowledge of consumers aspirations, fears, values etc. It also challenges the value proposition versus
broader alternative uses or solution scope, not just direct competitive products. “Here is what our
product can do, is very different from “here is what you can do with our product” said Jason Fried,
founder of Basecamp in Rework (Fried & Heinemeier Hansson, 2010). It should be added that it is
also probably different from what consumer’s themselves would say the product is doing for them.

Behavioral Science Frameworks: Reflection of real-life journeys
To better drive behaviours, marketers need to walk in their consumers’ shoes, starting with decoding
how they will interpret their value proposition in the very situation where they form their
judgement. Indeed, we as consumers, have many faces: users, shoppers, netizens, parents etc. and
our trade-offs are very much dependant on which side of us is activated in the situation we are
deciding: is it the fast-thinking shopper, the concerned citizen or perhaps the greedy consumer?

Observing consumers whenever and wherever they make decisions then becomes a lot more reliable
than them asking questions in focus groups or via questionnaires. Decoding what biases are at play
when consumers decode marketing elements (such aspack, formats, communications) is also key to
debiasing the design or message accordingly.

In context, the consumers’ experience of brand reality is also very different depending on
touchpoints: online packaging does not have the same triggers as that on in a real shelve; group
purchase does not work the same in store with the family as with friends online. Context-based
behavioural research using choice scenario is then critical to discover the rules of place where you
would like to play.

Unfortunately, many marketers start with crafting their concept first, then they design the mix, and
end up choosing the channels. They often discover too late that their brand can’t properly express its
promise in the context of choice. That is why we believe they should think backward instead: first
explore expected behaviour in place of the moment when the itch of the need or the choice occurs,
to create behavioural-science informed designs that work in real life and trigger desired behaviours.

Indeed, the best functional product is not always the most successful on the market: it can be beaten
by the most available one, or the good-enough one that chose to be affordable. To help marketers
think in terms of outcomes of the trade-offs people make in context, not in terms of product
characteristics, we have included the situational factor in our framework. This way we force the
consideration of perception biases and heuristics embedding execution into strategy. This is because
“execution is the only strategy consumers will see”(Alan-George Lafley, 2008).

To force marketers to formulate positioning from the consumer point of view, we have also voiced it
using the subject “I” instead of “us”. The framework is formulated with essential questions inspired
from behavioural science, that the brain is seeking to answer to reach its goals, as though a
consumer could hear the inner voice of the brain decoding all its senses. Consumers don’t buy value-
proposition statements - they buy and consume real items, that they can compare, touch and feel,
and get implicit answers from.

Our Behavioural Science Positioning Framework
The “little inner voice” of a consumer’s brain is trying to get answers to four main questions that
should help a brand reverse-engineer the perceived positioning. Although they may look obvious,
writing the answers from the point of view of the consumer is a challenge: all answers should be
informed by consumer sourced behavioural insights research (not what consumers say!). To help you
formulate them, we have added 3 sub-questions about the specifics that the story you write should
answer.

Table 1: Behavioural Science Positioning Framework

When completed, this framework reads as if you could hear the little voice of a consumer’s brain,
senses and biases decoding product and marketing cues. Some of these thoughts may not be fully
conscious in real life, but simulating the brain’s voice (not the consumer’s) helps surface them as
they are happening anyway. Although you may be tempted to get these answers from your own
thinking, we strongly advise collecting them from listening and observing your customers, using
appropriate context-based research techniques (and avoiding focus groups or quantitative
questionnaires).

This framework is focused on helping marketers design lovable experiences. It is complementary to
the traditional positioning ones that are more focused on helping them clarify their communication.
It can also be used as a mirror exercise that helps positioning statements move beyond wishful
thinking, whose reality lies only in marketing plans. As famous anthropologist Gregory Bateson used
to say: “language often implicitly highlights one of the points of view to describe a reality… for this
reason, two descriptions are better than one” i.e. the point of view of the brand and that of the
consumer (marketing positioning vs perceived positioning).

If you would like to discover how this framework has helped FMCG brands successfully revisit their
positioning, we would be happy to share some case studies with you. To bring your brand positioning
to life and supercharge some NPD processes (avoiding the traps of misleading research), we have
designed alongside our sister company PRS IN VIVO, a dedicated behavioural research plan, as well
as self-audit tools that embed ultimate Behavioural Science principles.

                                        Richard Bordenave
                                        CEO | BVA NUDGE UNIT ASIA
                                        richard.bordenave@bvanudgeunit.com

     Contact us to find out more about how behavioural science can help your
                      organisation create lasting behaviour change.

Bibliography
Alan-George Lafley, R. C. (2008). The Game Changer. Penguin Random House.

Christensen, C. (2005). The cause and the cure of Marketing malpractice. HBR.

Fried, J., & Heinemeier Hansson, D. (2010). Rework. New York Times Best seller.

Moore, G. (2014). Crossing the chasm. Harper Business Books.

Osterwalder, A., Smith, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernada, G., & Papadakos, T. (2014). Value Proposition Design.
       WILEY.

Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1985). Positioning, The battle for your mind. McGraw-Hill .

 Liked this article? Discover more at www.bvanudgeunit.com
                       Follow us to stay up to date: