symbolic and functional positioning of brands

IntroductionPositioning a brand through a clear and consistent image-building campaignhas been a cornerstone of brand marketing practice. Marketers spendmillions of dollars each year to create and support brand images. Theirefforts seem to have paid off, as evidenced by the enduring, well-defined,and strong images of some of the world’s popular brands (e.g. Marlboro,Ivory, Pepsi). In line with this evidence, theorists and practitioners (cf.Gardner and Levy, 1955; Park et al., 1986; Ries and Trout, 1986) haverecommended that developing, communicating, and maintaining a brand’simage is crucial to its long-term success.

The importance of a brand’s image in its long-term success necessitateshaving a framework for strategically managing the image over the long term(Park et al., 1986). Brand managers have had very little direction for settingup such a conceptual framework. One notable exception is brand conceptmanagement (BCM) proposed by Park et al.(1986). BCM proposes thatevery brand image should be based on a brand concept or a brand-specificabstract meaning. In its general form, a brand concept can be either symbolicor functional, and thus comprises one aspect of a brand’s image. Functionalbrands satisfy immediate and practical needs. Symbolic brands satisfysymbolic needs such as those for self-expression and prestige, and theirpractical usage is only incidental. For example, in the category of wristwatches, the brand Casio would be considered a functional brand since itsusefulness lies primarily in its ability to tell the time correctly. The brandMovado, on the other hand, would be considered a symbolic brand since it isused primarily for its status appeal, and its ability to tell the time is only anincidental reason for its usage. Once a concept is selected for a brand, Parket al.(1986) advise that it should be maintained over the brand’s life for sakeof consistency.

While the notion of brand concept management is intuitively appealing, theproposition that brands can be either symbolic or functional in their appealto consumers raises a number of interesting issues. The first issue is whethersymbolism and functionality are two distinct concepts or are two ends of onebrand concept continuum. In addition to the uniqueness of these twoconcepts, Park et al.(1986) assume that each of these concepts isunidimensional. Whether that is really so has not been examined inempirical research to date. Also, to our knowledge, no measures or scaleshave been developed that would assess whether a particular brand issymbolic or functional. Thus, empirical research has not directly examinedthese related issues. An understanding of such issues would also be veryuseful to marketing managers in planning positioning strategies for theirbrands. In this exploratory study, a set of scales are developed to assess abrand’s symbolic and/or functional value to consumers. In the process, we

Symbolic and functionalpositioning of brandsSubodh BhatAssociate Professor, Department of Marketing, San Francisco StateUniversity, San Francisco, California, USA andSrinivas K. ReddyProfessor, Department of Marketing, University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia, USA

An executive summaryfor managers andexecutives can be foundat the end of this article

32 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 1 1998 pp. 32-43 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761

Brand image important

Symbolic or functional

examine the issue of distinctiveness and dimensionality of the two brandconcepts.

BackgroundThere is a long tradition of research into human needs and motivations.While there are a large number of theories and models that explain thenature of human motivation for consumption behavior, a simple typologywould suggest two distinct schools of thought. The rational school or the“economic man” model suggests that consumers are rational and try tomaximize total utility. They do so by buying products based on objectivecriteria like price per ounce or gallons per mile (Schiffman and Kanuk,1994). In arriving at this decision, consumers generally go through a varietyof cognitive operations that include deciding the importance of each attributein a product category, gathering information about competing brands’attributes, judging the levels of each attribute in competing brands, andfinally using a judgment rule to decide on the optimal brand (for anexhaustive review of the information processing literature, please seeBettman, 1979). A number of researchers, however, contend that the rationalmodel is appropriate only for goods which consumers value for theirtangible and utilitarian benefits, and does not adequately capture theirmotivation for consuming products that satisfy their emotional wants (cf.Levy, 1959; Dichter, 1960; Holbrook, 1980). For example, Hirschman andHolbrook (1982) note that the rational model does not capture themultisensory imagery, fantasy, fun, and emotions associated with theconsumption of some products. They refer to this type of consumption,based on individual tastes and intangible product benefits, as hedonicconsumption. Thus, in contrast to the rational or information processingapproach, the emotional or hedonic school holds that consumers’ motivesare emotional in nature. In this perspective, individuals use personal orsubjective criteria such as taste, pride, desire for adventure, and desire forexpressing themselves, in their consumption decisions (Schiffman andKanuk, 1994). Consumer behaviorists have long recognized the importanceof both types of motivations (cf. Katz, 1960; Mittal, 1983). Empirically,several researchers have noted the existence of these two different types ofmotivations and the different product attribute categories that tap into thesemotivations (cf. Mittal, 1988; Mittal et al., 1990; Johar and Sirgy, 1991).Thus, both theory and research support the idea that consumers’ needs aredriven by functional/utilitarian as well as by symbolic/expressivemotivations.

In keeping with this tradition, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986) notedthat consumers’ needs could be classified as being either functional orsymbolic. They assert that functional needs are related to specific andpractical consumption problems whereas symbolic needs are related to self-image and social identification. To tap into these two different types ofneeds, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986) proposed that all brands shouldhave a “brand concept”, which is an overall abstract meaning that identifiesa brand. They suggested that a brand concept be either symbolic orfunctional, thus tapping into consumers’ symbolic and functional needsrespectively. Park et al.’s (1986) brand concept management frameworkadvises managers to select a specific concept for a brand at the time of itsintroduction and then use the marketing mix to support and reinforce it overthe brand’s life. This helps consumers understand with clarity what a brandcan do for them.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 1 1998 33

Two schools of thought

Brand concept

The existence of different types of motivations among individuals suggeststhat within most product categories, consumers’ needs could be eitherfunctional or symbolic in nature, and brands could be positioned to satisfyeither of these two types of needs. Thus, functional or utilitarian needs ofconsumers could be exploited with a “functional” brand, i.e. one positionedwith a functional brand concept or meaning. Similarly, a brand could bepositioned as a “symbolic” brand to tap the needs of those who wish toenhance their self-image or their social image.

Park et al.further argued that brands should be positioned to appeal to eitherone of these types of needs, but not both, for a number of reasons. A brandconcept that is both functional and symbolic poses problems for consumersbecause they cannot clearly relate the brand to either their functional or theirsymbolic needs. In addition, it increases the number of competing brandsand makes brand image management difficult. This argument, howevertheoretically compelling, has not been tested in empirical research. In onerelated research, Parket al. (1991) were able to show that consumers’reaction to functional extensions of functional brands was more favorablethan their reaction to prestige extensions of functional brands. In the samestudy, consumers also displayed a more positive reaction to prestigeextensions of prestige brands than to functional extensions of prestigebrands. Please note that, in this study, the authors assumed that brandconcepts could be either functional or prestigious (not symbolic).

Several questions, though, remain unanswered. Are functional and symbolicbrand concepts adequately distinguished in consumers’ minds? If so, whatare some characteristics that help in distinguishing these brand concepts? Isthe prestige of a brand an adequate representation of a brand’s symbolism toits customers? Are functionality and symbolism merely the two ends of acontinuum? In any event, is there a mechanism to assess the functionality orsymbolism of brands? The paucity of research to illuminate these issuesresulted in this study.

This study was set up to answer the preceding questions: to investigate thephenomenon of the functionality or the symbolism of brand image and todevelop scales that would help classify a brand as functional or symbolic.Apart from the theoretical contributions, the issues raised in this study havea number of managerial implications for brand positioning.

MethodIn line with this study’s main objective of exploring the issue of brandimage functionality or symbolism, scales containing items thought tomeasure a brand’s functional or symbolic value to consumers wasdeveloped. The scale was validated by testing the scale’s ability todiscriminate between brands a priori identified as functional or symbolic.Correlations among the items in the scale and exploratory and confirmatoryfactor analyses of the data were used to investigate the dimensionality ofbrand functionality and symbolism.

Stimuli Pairs of brands were identified in a few commonly used product categories,such that one brand in each pair was, a priori, thought to be functional andthe other symbolic. In other words, the first brand was thought to primarilysatisfy functional needs whereas the second brand was thought to mainlysatisfy the symbolic needs of consumers of the product category. The pairsof brands which were selected are shown in Table I.

34 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 1 1998

Unanswered questions

Functional or utilitarianneeds

Item generation Adjectives or phrases thought to indicate a brand’s symbolism orfunctionality were first generated by the authors and a focus group ofgraduate students at a university. The focus group noted the difficulty ofcoming up with adjectives describing functional or utilitarian appeal. Basedon these processes, three adjectives and phrases were identified as relating tofunctionality and 17 as relating to symbolism.

Three sets of questionnaire items were developed for the 20 adjectives andphrases. The first set of questions sought respondents’ agreement withvarious statements about individuals’ use of a brand to express themselves.The second set of items sought respondents’ ratings on the characteristics ofthe brand, whereas the third set of items sought evaluations of the user of thebrand. Responses were measured with seven-point scales in all cases.

With respect to the items representing brand functionality, respondentsrecorded their agreement with the statement that “_____ (brand) was forpeople who are down-to-earth” and evaluated the practicality of:

(1) the brand itself; and

(2) the user of the brand.

The 17 adjectives and phrases representing brand symbolism were assessedwith three sets of items. In the first set of items, respondents were to agreewith these statements:

(1) “people use _____ (brand) as a way of expressing their personality”;

(2) “ _____ (brand) is for people who want the best things in life”;

(3) “a _____ (brand) user stands out in a crowd”; and

(4) “using _____ (brand) says something about the kind of person you are”.

The second set of items sought to evaluate these brand characteristics:

(1) symbolic;

(2) prestigious;

(3) exciting;

(4) status symbol; and

(5) distinctive v. conventional.

The third set of items evaluated these characteristics of the brand’s user:

(1) sophisticated v. simple;

(2) not at all v. very romantic;

(3) not at all v. very successful;


Table I.

Product category Symbolic brand Functional brand

1 Watches Rolex Timex

2 Sports shoes Nike Converse

3 Cosmetics Lancôme Maybelline

4 Hair cream Paul Mitchell Suave

5 Ice cream Haagen Dazs Sealtest

Three sets ofquestionnaire items

Brand symbolism

(4) unique v. ordinary;

(5) stylish v. plain;

(6) expressive v. subdued;

(7) glamorous v. sedate; and

(8) not at all v. very elegant.

Survey design and administration Two separate questionnaires were prepared with questions on five of the tenstimulus brands such that each questionnaire contained questions about oneof the brands within a product category. Thus, a subject would answer theabove questions with respect to either a symbolic brand or a functional brandwithin a product category but not both. This procedure was used to eliminateany comparative biases in responses. The survey was administered to 62graduate students at a major south-eastern university.

ResultsAnalysis of correlations To obtain a preliminary idea of the pattern of relationships among theseitems, the correlations among the items were first examined. Generally, theitems thought to measure symbolism were correlated positively with eachother, the items thought to measure functionality were correlated positivelywith each other, and the symbolism items correlated negatively with thefunctionality items. Most of the correlations were of a high magnitude andwere statistically significant.

Factor analysis To further explore this issue, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted.A three-factor solution explained 65.1 percent of the variance of the 20variables, with the eigenvalue for the third factor being 1.01. Based on thegenerally accepted rules of selecting a factor solution with eigenvaluesgreater than one and the incremental variance explained, a three-factorsolution seemed sensible. The factor loadings of the items in the three-factorsolution are depicted in Table II.

Factor 1 had items purporting to measure brand symbolism: items relating tobrand evaluation (“Prestigious”, “Distinctive”, and “Exciting”) and itemsrelating to evaluation of the brand user (“Stylish”, “Glamorous”, “Expressive”,“Sophisticated”, “Unique”, “Elegant”, “Successful”, and “Romantic”). Sincethese items are associated with prestige and style, this factor 1 was termed“Prestige”. Factor 2 had these items loading high on it: “Makes statement”(says something about brand user), “(brand user) Stands out in a crowd”,“Expresses personality” (brand expresses a user’s personality), “Symbolic”(rating of brand as symbolic), “Status symbol” (rating of brand as a statussymbol) and “Best” (user wants the best things in life). It seems that except for“Status symbol”, these items mainly reflect the use of the brand to express theuser’s personality; therefore, this factor was named “Personality expression”.The third factor had items purporting to measure brand functionality loadingon it: “Practical” (brand), “Practical” (brand user), and “Down-to-earth”(brand user), and therefore, this factor was termed “Functionality”.

The exploratory analysis suggested a distinction between the functional andsymbolic constructs. Interestingly, it seems the symbolic construct may betwo-dimensional, one focusing on the prestige of the brand and the other onthe use of the brand for expressing the user’s personality.


A three-factor solution

Symbolic construct

The reliabilities of the scales and sub-scales were measured with Cronbach’scoefficient alpha. Coefficient alpha was 0.96 for the entire scale, 0.96 for theprestige subscale, 0.91 for the personality expression subscale, and 0.78 forthe functionality subscale. These reliability figures are in line with those incurrent empirical research.

Confirmatory factor analysis The items were then subject to confirmatory factor analysis using LISRELVI to compare one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor models. The three-factor model had the best overall fit to the data with a χ2 statistic of 156.08(p = 0.717), goodness of fit index of 0.836, an adjusted goodness of fit indexof 0.794, and a root mean square residual of 0.056. This further confirmsthat brands are best evaluated along three dimensions.

Validation of the scales with a priori functional and symbolic brands Since two brands were selected in each product category so that one wasconsidered symbolic and one functional, how well the items in the scalesdiscriminated between the symbolic and functional brands would furtherconfirm that the items were good indicators of brand symbolism orfunctionality. Mean ratings on each item were obtained for all brands andt-tests were performed to see if the mean ratings on the 20 items weredifferent for the a priori symbolic and functional brands.

The results of the t-tests for differences among the symbolic and functionalbrands with respect to the symbolic and functional items are presented inTable III. In general, items from all three scales were helpful in differentiatingbetween the a priori symbolic and functional brands. The items “Practical”(brand) and “Practical (brand user)” did not, however, discriminate betweenthe a priori symbolic/functional pair Nike/Converse. With this one exception,the highly effective discrimination between a priori functional and symbolicbrands by the items in the scale for measuring functionality and the twodimensions of symbolism indicates the validity of the scales.


Table II. Factor analysis of brand symbolism and functionality items

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Stylish (user) 0.79 0.40 0.26Glamorous (user) 0.78 0.31 0.28Expressive (user) 0.75 0.35 0.16Sophisticated (user) 0.72 0.34 0.28Unique (user) 0.66 0.40 0.31Elegant (user) 0.66 0.34 0.39Successful (user) 0.66 0.38 0.25Prestigious (brand) 0.60 0.51 0.36Distinctive (brand) 0.58 0.48 0.25Romantic (user) 0.57 0.08 0.15Exciting (brand) 0.56 0.46 0.14Makes statement (brand) 0.17 0.77 0.08Stands out in a crowd (user) 0.25 0.74 0.12Expresses personality (brand) 0.27 0.72 0.14Symbolic (brand) 0.45 0.66 0.27Status symbol (brand) 0.49 0.61 0.32Wants best things 0.47 0.60 0.32Practical (brand) –0.29 –0.12 –0.80Practical (user) –0.16 –0.20 –0.72Down-to-earth (user) –0.36 –0.12 –0.48

Symbolic and functionalbrands

Next, ratings on all the items in the functional subscale were averaged toobtain a single score on that dimension for each brand. Similar exerciseswere completed for the prestige and personality expression subscales. Foreach brand, the mean ratings on the subscales, as well as the t-tests fordifferences between these mean ratings are presented in Table IV. The t-testssuggested that there were significant differences between the functional andsymbolic brands in each pair of brands with one exception: Nike andConverse were not perceived as different in terms of their functionality.Thus, with the exception of the pair Nike/Converse, the brands in all theother pairs in the pretest are clearly either functional or symbolic.

Generally, the functional brands scored high on the functional scale whilescoring low on the prestige and personality expression scales. In the samefashion, symbolic brands tended to have high ratings on the prestige andpersonality expression scales while having low scores on the functionalscale. That the dimensions of brand symbolism, prestige and personalityexpression were distinct is evident in the variation of the mean scores onthese dimensions for both the functional and symbolic brands.

Theoretical contributions and research issuesThis article reports the results of a study that examined the issue of thefunctionality or symbolism of brand names. The distinction between


Table III. Tests for differences among brand pairs

Rolex Nike Haagen Dazs Paul Mit LancômeTimex Converse Sealtest Suave Maybelline

Overall (Hotelling’s T2) *** *** *** *** **FunctionalBrand – practical *** ns *** *** ***User – practical *** ns *** *** ***

– down-to-earth *** *** *** *** **Symbolic (prestige)Brand – elegant *** *** *** *** ***

– prestigious *** *** *** *** ***– exciting *** ** * *** **– distinctive *** *** *** *** ***

User – sophisticated *** *** *** *** ***– romantic *** ns * * **– successful *** *** ** *** ***– unique *** ** ** *** ***– stylish *** *** *** *** ***– glamorous *** *** *** *** ***– expressive *** *** ** *** ***

Symbolic (personality expression)Brand – makes

statement *** ns ** *** ns– expresses

personality *** *** ** *** ns– symbolic *** *** *** *** ***– status symbol *** *** *** *** ***

User – wantsthings *** *** *** *** ***

– stands out ina crowd *** ns ** ** ns

* indicates p < 0.1; ** indicates p < 0.05; *** indicates p < 0.01

Prestige and personalityexpression

functional and symbolic brands has been proposed in the literature but hasnot been empirically examined. It is not clear whether brand functionalityand symbolism are opposite sides of the same phenomenon or two separatephenomena. In other words, does a brand have to be uniquely functional orsymbolic but not both, as suggested by Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986)or is it possible for a brand to have both symbolic and functional appeal? Arelated issue that has not been probed is whether functionality andsymbolism are each unidimensional or multidimensional.

In this study, survey items thought to reflect brand functionality andsymbolism were first generated. Factor analysis of the 20 items suggestedthe existence of three factors: one representing functionality and the othertwo representing two different dimensions of symbolism, prestige andpersonality expression. The resulting three subscales were shown to be veryeffective in distinguishing between brands that were a priori identified asfunctional or symbolic.

Theoretical contributions We believe that this is the first study to examine the concepts of brandfunctionality and symbolism in any detail. The findings of the study providesome evidence that functionality and symbolism are distinct concepts andnot really two ends of a brand concept continuum. At least two brands in thestudy, Nike and Converse, which were initially thought to be symbolic andfunctional respectively, had similar mean ratings on the three subscales. Inaddition, the mean ratings of symbolic brands on the functional scale weregenerally around the mid-point of that scale whereas the ratings of thefunctional brands on the two symbolic scales were also close to the mid-point of the scales. These observations suggest that it is possible to havebrands that have both functional and symbolic meanings for consumers.

There was also evidence that brand symbolism is a multidimensionalconcept and may actually comprise two subdimensions that were labeled“Prestige” and “Personality expression”. Mean ratings on the prestige andpersonality expression subscales showed wide differences for the symbolicbrands in the study.


Table IV. Mean ratings (standard deviations) of brands on measures of brandsymbolism and functionality and t-tests for differences in means

Symbolic SymbolicBrands Functional (prestige) (personality)

Rolex 2.60 (1.27) 5.98 (0.73) 6.30 (0.73)Timex 5.54 (0.82) 3.28 (0.99) 3.56 (0.96)

(t = –10.72, p < 0.001) (t = 11.94, p < 0.001) (t = 12.32, p < 0.001)

Nike 4.62 (0.93) 4.80 (0.70) 5.00 (1.01)Converse 4.94 (1.04) 4.80 (0.70) 4.10 (1.19)

(t = –1.24, p. = 0.22) t = 5.46, p < 0.001) (t = 3.21, p = 0.002)

Haagen Dazs 3.21 (0.99) 4.80 (0.97) 4.25 (1.07)Sealtest 4.83 (1.00) 3.56 (0.93) 2.77 (1.18)

(t = –5.94, p < 0.001) (t = 4.73, p < 0.001) (t = 4.76, p < 0.001)

Paul Mitchell 3.43 (1.16) 5.24 (0.66) 5.02 (0.71)Suave 5.54 (0.94) 3.38 (1.00) 2.91 (1.02)

(t = 6.02, p < 0.001) (t = 7.09, p < 0.001) (t = 7.08, p < 0.001)

Lancôme 3.68 (0.63) 5.43 (0.71) 4.63 (0.72)Maybelline 4.98 (0.91) 3.65 (1.03) 3.43 (1.34)

(t = –5.59, p < 0.001) t = 6.71, p < 0.001) (t = 3.83, p < 0.001)

Two distinct concepts


Further research issues This study used only two brands in five different product categories.Replication with other brands and other product categories, and with largerand non-student samples, may be useful in generalizing the findings of thisstudy. The relationship between the concepts of prestige and personalityexpression could be a fruitful research issue. Future research can assess therelationship between brand functionality/prestige/personality expression, andpopular dependent variables such as brand attitudes, purchase intentions andbehavior.

Managerial implications and recommendations This study’s findings suggest that brand functionality and symbolism aredistinct concepts in consumers’ minds. Anecdotal examples of thisdistinction abound. For example, to owners of Harley-Davidsonmotorcycles, their motorcycle is not just a mode of transportation. “It is anexperience, an attitude, a lifestyle, and a vehicle to express who one is”(Aaker, 1996, p. 138). Owners of Honda motorcycles, on the other hand,generally use their vehicles for a functional reason, transportation, and donot view them as having any symbolic value.

At the same time, the study’s results suggest that consumers see a brand’sfunctionality and symbolism as separate phenomena. This implies thatconsumers do not have any trouble accepting brands that have bothsymbolic and functional appeal. In this study, Nike was perceived as beingfunctional, prestigious, and expressive. Thus, contrary to therecommendations by Park et al. (1986) that brands be positioned as eithersymbolic or functional to avoid customer confusion and reduce the numberof competitors, it seems that companies can position a brand to have severalbrand concepts and still have it widely accepted. The success of severalbrands that have positioned themselves on both their practical problem-solving features as well as the image they convey to their users offersfurther evidence that such a strategy works. For example, for someMacintosh users, the appeal of the brand lies not only in the functionaladvantages of its computers, but also in the image it conveys of its users asbeing individualistic, creative, or even anti-establishment. Similarly,consumers use Zippo lighters not only for lighting objects but also for thestatus image they convey. Marketers wishing to brand their products withmultiple concepts should note, however, that conveying multipleassociations can be quite tricky. If the associations representing thedifferent brand concepts do not fit well, the resulting confusion amongconsumers can result in a brand being perceived as neither functional norsymbolic and thus not really useful to consumers.

The evidence of two distinct dimensions of brand symbolism suggests thatmarketers do not necessarily have to position a brand as a prestige brandwith its associations of expensiveness and exclusivity to tap the symbolicneeds of consumers. In some instances, a marketing mix that shows how thebrand can be used to express a consumer’s personality or have some distinctmeaning to a consumer would perhaps be a cheaper, easier and moreeffective strategy than one that tries to position the brand on prestige andexclusivity. Dr Pepper, for example, has long positioned itself as a beveragethat lets consumers express themselves, without emphasizing the functionalor practical benefits or an image of an upscale beverage or status icon. Pez,Wells Fargo, and the Volkswagen Beetle are other brands that havesuccessfully used this approach.

Separate phenomena

Symbolic needs ofconsumers


References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Dichter, E. (1960), The Strategy of Desire, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,March-April, pp. 33-40.

Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,methods, and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101.

Holbrook, M.B. (1980), “Some preliminary notes on research into consumer esthetics”, inOlson, J.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Association for ConsumerResearch, Ann Arbor, MI.

Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), “Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals:when and why to use which appeal”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.

Katz, D. (1960), “The functional approach to the study of attitudes”, Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. 24, pp. 163-204.

Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sale”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 37, July-August, pp. 117-19.

Mittal, B. (1983), “Understanding the bases and effects of involvement in the consumer choiceprocess”, doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982.

Mittal, B. (1988), “The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressiveproducts”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 499-524.

Mittal, B., Ratchford, B. and Prabhakar, P. (1990), “Functional and expressive attributes asdeterminants of brand-attitude”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 135-55.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept imagemanagement”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation of brand extensions: the role ofproduct feature similarity and brand concept consistency”, Journal of ConsumerResearch,Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93.

Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1994), Consumer Behavior,Prentice Hall, NJ.


Brand positioning: it’s complex and needs creative solutions for successAs a green advertising account executive, I recall some account planningdirector pontificating about brand positioning. At the time it all went ratherover my head and I’m sure the creative team felt much the same. Since thattime – like many practical marketers – I’ve continued with my struggle tograsp what brand positioning means for actual marketing.

Among all this angstabout positioning I’ve concluded that what matters isnot the positioning per sebut its uniqueness. Just like the studies ofcorporate positioning we focus on setting ourselves apart from competitors.Indeed, the product positioning maps for some brands bear a resemblance tohouse parties with everybody crammed into the kitchen leaving vast openspaces in the area where the party should happen. Typically (and in my viewrather sadly) the “kitchen” represents the “pile ‘em high and sell ‘emcheap” position. Too few marketers seem to think beyond the short-termrealization of targets and consider the long-term future of their brand.

Bhat and Reddy examine brand positioning from the perspective ofsymbolism and functionality. They ask whether symbolism and functionalityare two ends of a continuum or two separate elements of brand positioning.In simple terms, can a brand have both symbolic and functional dimensionsor are such concepts mutually exclusive? The answer appears to be that theformer applies – it is possible for consumers to view a brand in bothsymbolic terms and functional terms.

When discussion of product benefits occurs, two types of benefit emerge:self-image benefits (this product will make me look or feel great, intelligentor rich) and functional benefits (this product will save me time or money, doa better job or provide a more enjoyable experience). As Bhat and Reddyshow with sports shoes, consumers want both types of benefit – people buyNike products because they’re associated with Michael Jordan, Tiger Woodsor some other sporting hero. But they also want comfort and performancefrom the shoe. If a pair fell apart after the first few wearings folk would soonstop believing the aspirational association with sporting celebrities!

The sale goes for other “aspirational” products – Mercedes cars aren’t justsold on the basis of “sex appeal” but on reliability, performance and resalevalue. Rolex watches might project a particular image but that relies asmuch on their quality as a watch as their physical appearance and éliteassociations. In the end, we can, as Bhat and Reddy state, “… position abrand to have several brand concepts and still have it widely accepted”. Ourchallenge as marketers comes in making such a combination of positioningelements coherent and unique.

With this challenge in mind I’d like to suggest a series of questions that needaddressing when deciding the positioning of a brand:

• What are the “functions” of the brand? Do they relate to everydaymundane parts of people’s lives? Are they fashion or prestige“functions”?

• What positioning does the pricing of the brand signal? Does thepackaging reflect the desired positioning in terms of personal expressionor prestige?

This summary has beenprovided to allowmanagers and executivesa rapid appreciation ofthe content of thisarticle. Those with aparticular interest in thetopics covered may thenread the article in toto totake advantage of themore comprehensivedescription of theresearch undertaken andits results to get the fullbenefit of the materialpresent

Executive summary and implications for managers andexecutives


• Do we want the brand to imply functional superiority, exclusivity orconsumer preference (the bestseller effect)?

• What is the balance of rational decision making and emotional choicewhen consumers buy the type of product? Are there elements inconsumer behavior that lead towards a “does exactly what it says on thetin” approach or a “this product will change your image” approach?

• Does the brand positioning relate to other marketing strategy elements(price, media selection, channel decisions, distribution, advertisingstrategy, etc.)? Are those aspects of marketing strategy geared towardslong-term brand strength or achieving this year’s sales targets?

Answering these questions requires input from market research, the carefulassessment of quality issues and service delivery plus the willingness toposition the product in the “lounge” rather than the “kitchen”. Any brandpositioning review must involve people from across the organization sincetheir activity will affect long-term brand positioning and performance.

In many ways the findings from this work put the problem of brandpositioning firmly back on the brand manager’s desk. There is no simplesolution (is there ever?) to long-term brand management issues and no wayof avoiding the complex assessment and risky choices that constitute anybrand positioning decision. Certainly, brands that succeed do so becausethey stand out from competitors – by radical images, innovativecommunications or the careful management of distribution to sustainprestige or exclusivity. Marketing directors and managers must focus oncreativity rather than tried and tested brand management models – failure toseek out such creative solutions leads in the end to boring advertising and“me-too” positioning. Not exactly a recipe for brand management success!

symbolic and functional positioning of brands

Documents