The Conundrum of Positioning Testing

May 12

Part 1 of Toward Better Approaches to Positioning Research

Positioning is a critical component of brand strategy, and most brand managers recognize the necessity of incorporating customer perspectives into this work. Simply put, effective strategy plays off customers’ actual realities, rather than boardroom hunches or branding trends. And the bolder the strategic move, the more important research (or data, insight—whatever you want to call it) becomes for building internal confidence and guiding execution.

While I see many brand teams whole-heartedly embrace positioning research, there is often a cloud of dissatisfaction or resistance surrounding it: brand teams find themselves fretting about "picking a winner” or trying to make sense of murky "test results." The commonality of this experience among colleagues suggests a pervasive misunderstanding (or perhaps misapplication) of the purpose of research—a misunderstanding that holds everyone back from bold, creative work.

Rather than researching to gain new understanding or explore a hypothesis, too often I see brands “testing” to simply feel better about positioning statements. This feel-better research typically starts after positioning statements are written, and usually involves a concept test of lofty, abstract sentences (e.g., "patient-centric innovation") that make more sense to brand managers than real-world customers.

Even worse, these “tests” may be conducted under time and financial pressures that can push methodological rigor to the wayside; as a result, they fail to yield meaningful guidance. In some cases, the "tests" introduce even more confusion and anxiety into the process.

So why do we do this?

Adopting new strategy can be scary; jobs and reputations are on the line, so brand stakeholders want to feel confident that they're doing the right thing. “Testing” helps clients "CYA", force internal buy-in, or overcome reservations about committing to the strategy.

As someone who has conducted this type of feel-better research, I completely empathize! And really, the respect for evidence-based decision-making is wise. But the way brands go about it is akin to using a hammer backward.

Consider this:

How many times have you sat in meetings looking at sentences on a PowerPoint slide, debating these questions …

Who really is our target audience?
What will actually drive behavior change for this audience?
What does our brand have credibility to deliver on?

If you find yourself in this situation, it's time to pause and step back.

The truth is, brand teams should already feel pretty well-versed in the answers to these questions (including their nuances and controversies) before positioning development begins. Otherwise, what is the positioning actually based on? An amalgamation of trendy buzzwords? The dream I had last night?

Fortunately, we can do better.

We can start the positioning process with research, creating a foundation of practical insight that grounds us in reality and also illuminates a brand's future potential. By shifting our attitude toward positioning evaluation from "testing" to grounding, we can use the truths of the market to inspire new strategies, instead of defending sentences.

And (perhaps best of all) we can give positioning strategy the strength to stand up to scrutiny, winning the hearts and minds of organizational leadership.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where I'll offer a model of what this grounded approach could look like.

Lou Sharma