MKT5610 Chap.6 Competitive Positioning and Perceptual Mapping
Competitive Positioning and Perceptual Mapping
Positioning is inferred from segments, not chosen for a product
The course exercise states three objectives: to fix positioning as the projection of an image, to show that a single product can hold different positions for different segments, and to walk through separating those segments and reading off the distinct position each one implies.
The second and third together say that one product can hold more than one position, and that positions are inferred from segments. A position is therefore not a slogan a company picks.
It is what a defined group believes about you relative to the alternatives that group is weighing.
Two displays, each refusing to show what the other shows
A semantic differential profile shows every benefit at once and reveals where two brands cross, and it cannot show a market because five overlapping profiles are unreadable.
A two-dimensional map shows the whole competitive set and reveals empty space, and it costs you every benefit not chosen as an axis.
Rating, weight and score are three different quantities
A rating is how well buyers think you perform and belongs to you. A weight is how much they care and belongs to the segment.
Their product, summed, is the only one of the three comparable across brands, and most positioning errors come from a sentence that silently moves between them.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Positioning as projecting an image to a defined comparison set
- 02
One product carrying different positions for different segments
- 03
The semantic differential profile and what crossings mean
- 04
The two-dimensional map and the cost of choosing axes
- 05
Empty space as a hypothesis with three possible explanations
- 06
Weighted attribute scores and decomposing the gap to the leader
- 07
Changing a rating against changing a weight
Compute weighted scores and read the instruction they contain
- 4Compute the four weighted scores.
- 2Identify what the ranking conceals about Gamma.
- 2Name the cheapest available point and say why.
Key terms
- Perceptual Map
- A plot of competing brands on two chosen benefit axes. It reveals unoccupied combinations and conceals every benefit not chosen, including the importance weights that would say whether the space is worth occupying.
- Semantic Differential
- A display of one or more brands as profiles across a set of rated benefits. It preserves the full shape of a brand and shows where two brands cross, which a scatter cannot.
- Benefit Rating
- How well buyers believe a brand performs on a benefit. It is specific to the brand and is what a product improvement or a communication campaign changes.
- Comparison Set
- The specific alternatives a segment weighs when deciding. A positioning claim made without naming it is untestable, because the same product is expensive against one set and cheap against another.
- Weight Shift
- Persuading a market that a benefit matters more than it currently does. It builds durable positions because it changes the scoreboard, and it requires a mechanism rather than a claim.
- Axis Selection
- The judgement of which two benefits a map is drawn on. Good axes carry real importance weight and disperse the competitive set; an axis where everyone scores alike places all brands in one spot.
Competitive Positioning and Perceptual Mapping FAQ
Why does one product need more than one position?
Because a position is relative to what a segment is comparing you against, and different segments compare you against different things. The same bakery is the fresh option to someone weighing it against a supermarket and the expensive option to someone weighing it against a convenience store. Nothing about the product changed. This is why the exercise asks for positions per group rather than one position for the product.
Is empty space on a perceptual map always an opportunity?
No, and that is the main thing the map will mislead you about. There are three reasons a combination can be unoccupied. Nobody has thought of it, which is worth pursuing. Nobody can deliver it, because the two benefits trade off in the technology or the cost structure. Or nobody wants it, and a map drawn from performance ratings cannot tell you that because it carries no importance information at all.
Should I try to improve my worst rating or my best one?
Usually the worst, and the weighted score shows why. A brand that leads on a benefit has invested there for years, so the next point is the most expensive it will ever buy, and buyers who already believe you are best will barely register it. A point gained on a benefit with slightly less weight is worth almost as much and costs far less when you are starting from a rating of two.
When is it worth trying to change the weights instead of the ratings?
When you have a genuine strength the market currently underweights and you can name the mechanism that would change its mind. Buyers do not re-weight because they were told to. They re-weight when a consequence becomes visible: a failure they experience, a comparison they can run themselves, or a new use that puts the benefit on the critical path. A proposal to shift weights without naming that mechanism is a wish.
Assessment move
Rate your own group's offering and the two closest alternatives on five benefits, then ask three people outside the group to do the same. The gap between your ratings and theirs is the finding. It is almost always largest on the benefit the group is proudest of, which is the one you were about to lead the communication with.
Working through Competitive Positioning and Perceptual Mapping in MKT5610? Sia is AskSia’s AI Marketing tutor — ask any MKT5610 Competitive Positioning and Perceptual Mapping question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MKT5610 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
