Follow Us on Twitter Bookmark & Share Subscribe to Feed

4 Basic Elements of a Positioning Statement

All marketing strategies and tactics need a well-constructed positioning statement to help maintain focus. The positioning statement is for internal use and should not show up in marketing copy. Every brand decision should be judged by how well it supports the positioning statement. These decisions include: brand name, the product or service itself, packaging, advertising, promotions, etc. It’s one of the primary tools for agencies to manage clients and clients to manage agencies.

A positioning statement describes the customer and paints a picture of how you want the market to perceive your brand.

There are four basic elements or components to a positioning statement:

  1. Target Audience – the attitudinal and demographic description of the core prospect. The customers who represents the brand’s most fervent users
  2. Frame of Reference (FOR) – the category in which the brand competes.  Context gives the brand relevance to the customer.
  3. Benefit/Point of Difference (POD) – the most compelling and motivating benefit that the brand can own.
  4. Reason to Believe – the most convincing proof that the brand delivers what it promises.

Template for a Positioning Statement:
For (target audience)(brand name) is the (frame of reference) that delivers (benefit/point of difference) because only (brand name) is reason to believe).

The wording of your positioning statement may vary. But to be effective, it must contain the five main components in brackets above.

Criteria for Evaluating a Positioning Statement

  1.  Is it memorable, motivating, and focused to the core prospect?
  2. Does it provide a clear, distinctive, and meaningful picture of the brand?
  3. Does it differentiate itself from the competition?
  4. Can the brand own it?
  5. Is it credible and believable?
  6. Does it enable growth?
  7. Does it serve as a filter for brand decision making?

What if we rename SWOT to TOWS?

SWOT is one of the most useful tools to conduct a strategic analysis. It is also often misunderstood. The reason has to do with historic development and naming of the tool. SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It was developed by a team at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the late 1960s.

The idea is to analyze internal capabilities (strengths and weaknesses) combined with the external environment (threats and opportunities). Armed with this analysis, begin to to identify strategic priorities and develop plans to address them.

The developers named their method SWOT. There is an implied hierarchy which encourages the analysis to first assess internal strengths and weaknesses, and then external opportunities and threats. This implied hierarchy has created problems for those who use this tool to drive strategy discussions in teams. In the absence of something to anchor the discussion, an analysis of organizational strengths and weaknesses can become abstract and undirected. Groups often fail in trying to define their organization’s strengths and weaknesses, end up frustrated and exhausted, and so give less attention to critical developments in the external environment.

A more progressive approach is to start with the environment and then analyze the organization. The first step is to assess the organization’s external environment, looking for emerging threats and potential opportunities. This assessment needs people who embedded in the reality of the organization and knowledgeable about its environment.

Having identified potential threats and opportunities, the group is able to better evaluate them with reference to organizational capabilities. Does the organization have weaknesses that make it particularly vulnerable to specific threats? Does the organization have strengths that would permit it to pursue specific opportunities?

The final step is to translate these assessments into a set of strategic priorities, blunting critical threats and pursuing high-potential opportunities. These are then the inputs to a more extensive strategic planning process.

A name change like this will never happen. But we can inject more discipline into the process.