A Research-Grounded Approach to Positioning
Part 2 of Toward Better Approaches to Positioning Evaluation
Previously, I described the shortcomings of "testing" positioning, and proposed a different approach: using research to ground the development of positioning, before any statement is ever written. So, what does it mean to use a research-grounded approach?
Essentially, a research-grounded approach means building evidence into the positioning framework itself, and aligning on a set of market truths before ideating on positioning strategy. In other words, we start the process with research rather than ending with it. By grounding the framework itself in evidence, we can easily point to clear data points when debating any aspect of positioning. And from that debate, brand teams can choose a strategy to pursue.
The key to this approach is that research is used to fuel strategic debate, as opposed to picking a “winning” strategy. On the surface, it may seem safer to let a survey or focus group choose the strategy—but outsourcing strategic decision-making about the vision and execution of a brand (and business) to a single study is far from safe. To do so would mean we are relying on market research participants to accurately interpret the full scope of a nascent strategy in practical terms, and then accurately project the change in their own behavior into a hypothetical future that is dependent on perfect execution of said nascent strategy. Frankly, I am exhausted just thinking about the mental effort that requires.
To be clear, we should absolutely listen to customers in this process—and we also need to contextualize the meaning of customers’ feedback within our understanding of the business.
So, how does a research-grounded approach to positioning work?
The research-grounded approach builds a holistic, evidence-based argument, brick-by-brick, for a positioning strategy. It starts with defining core research questions for each part of the positioning framework, and then using research to answer those questions. Then, as positioning is developed and evaluated, the answers to those questions keep us honest and accountable to reality.
Positioning frameworks vary across teams and agencies, and which framework is best is a rich debate that I will not cover here. Regardless, most positioning frameworks include some sense of the following elements (which may be further detailed, simplified, or narrativized):
Target Audience (who we're speaking to)
Competitive Frame (how the brand wants to distinguish itself among the target audience)
Reasons to Believe (how the brand delivers on the competitive frame)
For example:
Target Audience: Highly motivated patients living with [condition X] who are frustrated with their treatment experience
Competitive Frame: [Brand] is the advocate who will stand up for their needs
Reasons to Believe: A holistic patient care program that lets patients take back control of their health and lives, featuring digital health tools, health coaches, and personalized educational content
(Please note this is just an illustrative example of how a team could fill out this hypothetical framework. Again, my aim here is not to debate positioning itself, but how research is employed in the process.)
There is plenty of ideation and debate that could go into creating the above positioning. We could spend months, if not years, debating which answers to this framework are truly "best." For example:
Should our target audience really be those patients who are “highly motivated, but frustrated”? Should it be women aged 45-64? Should it be people newly diagnosed with condition X?
Should we position ourselves as an "advocate" or is that off-putting? What if we focused on other qualities, such as being more innovative or having a longer legacy in the market?
Should we tout our patient care program, even though we're still working out the kinks? Is educational content something that patients even want? Should we talk about cost or clinical outcomes instead?
But what if we could shortcut this debate by first building a foundation of truth?
In the research-grounded approach, we'd define and answer a set of questions to inform each element of the positioning framework. Here are some illustrative examples:
Target Audience:
Who could buy/use our product/service?
Of this population, which audiences offer the most value for us today and tomorrow?
Who is this audience demographically, culturally, attitudinally, emotionally, behaviorally?
What does this audience really care about?
What motivates this audience in purchase/adoption?
Competitive Frame:
What equities does the brand hold today?
How do these equities compare to current and future capabilities?
What can the brand truly own in the market?
How relevant are the brand's equities to audience needs?
Reasons to Believe:
What can we point to today as evidence that the brand "walks the talk"?
What aspects of our product/service offering do audiences really care about?
What aspects of our product/service offering could we get our audiences to care more about?
Answering these types of questions is critical: If we're fuzzy about who we're selling to, and if we're unsure of what aspects of a brand's offering actually motivate the market, then it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable debate about the merits of a positioning strategy. By aligning (more or less) on the answers to these questions, all the stakeholders involved can enter into positioning discussions with a consistent set of facts accurately describing customers’ worlds. From here, choosing a positioning strategy can become an exercise of exploring possibilities.
The good news is that you don’t need an onerous research program to use a research-grounded approach. A strategically-minded researcher can help launch the positioning process by creating a tailored plan to get the answers you need most efficiently.
