Brand Positioning Strategies and their Effectiveness: A case of High Street Fashion Retail Brands in Pakistan

Abstract

Brand positioning has been acknowledged by practitioners and academics to be an important element of brand management. Firstly, this study aims to investigate the relationship between three brand positioning strategies (benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy) and joint effect of the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness, namely; favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, credibility, and sustainability. Secondly, this study investigates the separate relationship between the three brand positioning strategies and the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness in the case of high street fashion apparel retail brands. To empirically test the proposed framework adapted measurement scales were used. Data from 607 young consumers in Pakistan were collected. Empirical findings confirm that benefit brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy have a greater effect on brand positioning effectiveness. However, a significant positive relationship was found between all three brand positioning strategies and brand positioning effectiveness. These findings also indicate varied yet insightful relationships between brand positioning strategies and five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Marketers can benefit from these findings to understand brand positioning strategies from a consumers' perspective thereby making use of these results in articulating branding strategies as a way to generate and communicate a distinctive competitive perception for their brands.

Headnote

Brand positioning has been acknowledged by practitioners and academics to be an important element of brand management. Firstly, this study aims to investigate the relationship between three brand positioning strategies (benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy) and joint effect of the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness, namely; favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, credibility, and sustainability. Secondly, this study investigates the separate relationship between the three brand positioning strategies and the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness in the case of high street fashion apparel retail brands. To empirically test the proposed framework adapted measurement scales were used. Data from 607 young consumers in Pakistan were collected. Empirical findings confirm that benefit brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy have a greater effect on brand positioning effectiveness. However, a significant positive relationship was found between all three brand positioning strategies and brand positioning effectiveness. These findings also indicate varied yet insightful relationships between brand positioning strategies and five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Marketers can benefit from these findings to understand brand positioning strategies from a consumers' perspective thereby making use of these results in articulating branding strategies as a way to generate and communicate a distinctive competitive perception for their brands.

Keywords: Brand Positioning; Brand Positioning Strategy, Brand Positioning Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

The Fashion industry is saturated with brands and even the best among these brands lack a point of differentiation (Clancy & Trout, 2002). The foundation of branding revolves around the concept of brand positioning (Anderson & Carpenter, 2005). In this sense, all marketing initiatives are based upon the positioning strategy of a brand (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Myers, 1996; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Brand positioning is described as "the act of designing the company's offering and image to occupy a distinctive place in the mind of the target market. The result of brand positioning is the successful creation of a customer-focused value proposition, a cogent reason why the target market should buy the product" (Kotier, 2003). The core aim of brand positioning is to create strong brand associations for your brand in the consumers' minds which include physical attributes, benefits, or life-style image of the consumer of the brand as distinct from the competition (Aaker, Batra, & Myers, 1992).

Pakistan's fashion apparel retail brand industry is expected to experience a decline from 9.1% to 7.5% compound annual growth rate from 2015 to 2019 (Apparel Retail in Pakistan, 2015). Brand positioning can make two similar products look different; and two dissimilar products look like substitutes (Evans, Moutinho, & van Raaij, 1996). Brand positioning is a central component in branding (Anderson & Carpenter, 2005) as most of the marketing initiatives are based on the positioning strategy of the brand (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Myers, 1996; Keller & Lehmann, 2006).

Globalization has changed the way consumers think, fierce competition and ever-increasing needs of marketers to make their brand outsmart all others has highlighted the need to create a holistic marketing strategy that is targeted towards strengthening the position of a brand. One important problem in brand positioning research is related to the question of which brand positioning strategy is most effective for a certain product category. Do brands positioned on features perform relatively better when compared with the brands which are positioned on intangible attributes, for example, an image of the user? Noticeably, prior literature has not addressed these questions (Pham & Muthukrishnan, 2002; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three different brand positioning strategies from a consumers' perspective and find for the benefit of brand managers which brand positioning strategy is more suitable for fashion retail brands. This study aims to empirically explore two major research questions; (a) What is the relationship between each of the three brand positioning strategies with brand positioning effectiveness? (see Figure 1.1); (b) What is the relationship of each of the three brand positioning strategies with each of the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness? (see Figures 1.2- 1.4); (c) Are the three brand positioning strategies distinctly different from each other in terms of their effectiveness?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Positioning Strategies

The importance of brand positioning has long been agreed upon by both practitioners and academicians (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Kalafatis, Tsogas, & Blankson, 2000; Kotler, 2003; Hooley, Piercy, & Nicoulaud, 2012; Trout & Revkin, 2010). Brand positioning has become increasingly important in today's competitive fashion markets (Clancy & Krieg, 2007; Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Pike, 2012) as this market is characterized by homogeneous and me-too products offered by competing brands in the marketplace (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). Furthermore, Fuchs and Diamantopoulos (2012) emphasize that even the strongest fashion brands such as Gucci and Apple are confronted with the challenge of competing within an overcommunicated and complex consumer market. Having selected a brand positioning strategy for the brand, the firm attempts to translate the brand's intended brand positioning into tangible and/or intangible attributes by tailoring different elements of the marketing mix (Kaul & Rao, 1995). Brand positioning strategy can be defined as "an attempt to move brands to a particular location within a perceptual product space" (Dillon, Domzal, & Madden, 1986). Sair and Shoaib (2014) are the latest to empirically measure brand positioning effectiveness from consumers' perspective using an instrument developed by Fuchs (2008). Table 1 shows different brand positioning strategies.

The aim of the implementation of brand positioning strategies is to create a brand image and communicate competitive advantage (Park, Jaworski, & McInnis, 1986). Brand positioning strategies are targeted towards either creating close associations (moving the brand closer to the competition in the perceptual map) or disassociation (moving the brand further away from the competition) (Keller, 2003). Specifically, this study hypothesizes that:

H1 - H3: There is a relationship between benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy, and brand positioning effectiveness.

Sengupta (2005) said: "consumers buy benefits and not features". Fashion retail brands are saturated with products that have closely similar features (Ries & Trout, 1986). Thompson et al., (2005) suggest that "consumers experience feature fatigue". Benefits created by feature positioning might only last for a short period of time (Moe & Fader, 2001). Previous research says, "benefits are felt to be more effective than features as positioning approaches" (Crawford, 1985). Benefit and surrogate positioning strategies are aimed at producing relatively more self-relevant meanings with consumers (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). Indeed, "consumers should be more persuaded by thoughts about what products can do for them and a product's relevance to personal goals or objectives than my thoughts about physical product characteristics" (Graeff, 1997).

There are weaknesses associated with benefits as well as surrogate positioning strategies. One potential drawback of benefit positioning is that it is, along with feature positioning, the most frequently used positioning strategy among fashion brands (Crawford, 1985). Consequently, consumers may become bored with hearing the same feature versus benefit debate drawing to the superiority of these fashion retail brands. On the contrary, surrogate positioning strategies are riskier than benefit positioning strategies (Aaker & Shansby, 1982) as they likely lead to a confused brand image (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000). The main justification for this argument is that surrogate positioning information may be interpreted completely differently by consumers (Crawford, 1985).

Marketers have always faced a dilemma concerning which brand positioning strategy is the best (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Past literature, surprisingly, has not paid much attention to this thorny issue in brand positioning (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). There is a dearth of research about the nature of surrogate positioning strategy and hence demands clarification (Fuchs, 2008). After considering the discussion, this research proposes to answer the following research question (RQ):

RQ: Does benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy, and feature brand positioning strategy differ in terms of their effectiveness?

Brand Positioning Effectiveness

It is expected that a well-positioned brand will make a brand profitable (Blankson, Kalafatis, Cheng, & Hadjicharalambous, 2008; Blankson & Crawford, 2012). Brand positioning effectiveness is based on the very "essence of brand positioning as emphasizing the distinctive characteristics that make a brand different from its competitors and appealing to the public" (Kapferer, 2004). Table 2 shows the dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness.

Favourability is the most basic of all the other dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness dimensions (Dacin & Smith, 1994). Favourability also determines whether consumers have developed favourable associations with the brand or not (Dillon, Thomas, Kirmani, & Mukherjee, 2001; Keller, 2003). It is important for marketing managers that consumers acknowledge the brand to be favourable (Keller, 2003). Favourability encompasses both brand-specific associations (Dillon, Thomas, Kirmani, & Mukherjee, 2001). Favourability assures that value is created for consumers and that brand association that is important for consumers are communicated with the help of marketing communications (Brooksbank, 1994). Marketers' prime concern should be the selection of that brand positioning strategy which will lead to greater brand favourability. Therefore, the hypotheses that:

H4(a) (b) (c): Benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy have a relationship with favourability dimension of brand positioning effectiveness.

Consumers have a set of expectations towards a brand (Keller, 2003) hence dissimilarity is driven by whether the brand under consideration meets those expectations or not. Attributes of a fashion brand that have importance and are considered comparable with competitors will create perceived similarity amongst fashion brands, whereas attributes that are different will cause the brand to be perceived as dissimilar (Bijmolt et al., 1998). Therefore, the hypotheses that:

H5(a) (b) (c): Benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy are likely to have a positive relationship with the dissimilarity dimension of brand positioning effectiveness.

Uniqueness as a dimension of brand positioning effectiveness is the trickiest of all the dimensions because it is industry-specific, for example, feature brand positioning strategy is more suitable for the mobile phone industry (Fuchs, 2008). This study intended to find the relationship of uniqueness dimension of brand positioning effectiveness in the fashion retail industry with the selected three brand positioning strategies. Prior studies show support that uniqueness can be a consequence that can be achieved by any of the three brand positioning strategies (Fuchs, 2008). Therefore, the hypotheses that:

H6(a) (b) (c): Benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy are likely to have a positive relationship with uniqueness dimension of brand positioning effectiveness.

Products and their uses that are considered outside of the norm can serve as recognizable ques of uniqueness (Tepper-Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). Trustworthiness and credibility allow the consumer to have reduced feelings of skepticism for a brand as it makes strong and convincing claims which have more meaning (Yoo & MacInnis, 2001) and thence the hypotheses that:

H7(a) (b) (c): Benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy are likely to have a positive relationship with credibility dimension of brand positioning effectiveness.

Sustainability highlights that the brand positioning strategy should be difficult to replicate by the competing brands (Cravens, 2000) and must create a long-term competitive advantage (Czepiel, 1992; De Chernatony, 2006). Therefore, the hypotheses that:

H8(a) (b) (c): Benefit positioning, feature positioning, and surrogate positioning have a relationship with the sustainability dimension of brand positioning effectiveness.

Fuchs (2008) conceptually defines brand positioning effectiveness as "the extent to which a brand is perceived to occupy a favourable, dissimilar, unique, and credible position in the minds of (target) consumers". This study, however, adds sustainability as the fifth crucial dimension to its measurement model and hence measures brand positioning effectiveness as a multidimensional construct (Edward, 2001; Pham & Muthukrishnan, 2002). Brand positioning effectiveness has been the researchers' favourite area of interest in recent times especially in the fashion retail industry where new communication challenges will keep fashion brands in a constant struggle to outshine competitors (Camiciottoli & Ranfagni, 2015).

METHODOLOGY

The target population for this study was graduate and undergraduate university students residing in Pakistan. The sample was however restricted to students of randomly selected eight private universities in Pakistan. The decision of choosing a pool of private university students was based on three factors; firstly, they have a greater familiarity of the product category (high street fashion); secondly, private university students are regular shoppers of fashion retail brands (Anderson & Gregory, 2005); and thirdly, they have access to internet since the mode of survey data collection was online (Boatswain, 2015). This research differentiates from the past researches where brand positioning strategy and brand positioning effectiveness were measured from the company's perspective which measured brand positioning intended by the marketing executives rather than the perceived brand positioning as reported by consumers (Fuchs, 2008; 2010). Out of all the surveys emailed to students by the program offices of the respective universities, 607 were received back.

For this study, the data collection instrument was re-worded and adapted from previously published literature (Fuchs, 2008). Data were collected via URL embedded, online questionnaires (Wiedmann, Walsh, & Mitchell, 2001). To assess whether the measures reflected the respective constructs, content validity of the adapted instrument was measured (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004). Content validity for individual items was established by calculating content validity index (CVI) developed by Martuza (1977). Items with individual CVI of 0.80 or higher are acceptable (Grant & Davis, 1997; Polit & Beck, 2004). In this instance, CVI came out to be 0.871. Common method bias can affect research analysis. Common latent factor test was used as a statistical remedy for common method bias (Aulakh & Gencturk, 2000). A single factor explains 37.5% of the variance in the model. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicators suggested a bad model fit since they fall outside the commonly accepted cut-off points; CMIN/ DF = 7.01 (cut-off point, 2 and 5), normed fit index (NFI) = 0.510, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.389, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.517, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.383, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.181. All the indicators other than CMIN/ DF have a cut-off point of 0.7 and RMSEA should be less than 0.10 (Yang & Green, 2010).

Another concern regarding bias in results is non-response bias in questionnaire research resulting because of missing data which can lead to incorrect results about the sample representing a population (Lineback & Thompson, 2010). Early respondents were compared with late respondents on key demographic indicators (gender, income, marital status, city of residence and education). Linear extrapolation method assumes that early respondents of the survey (W1) are different from late respondents of the survey (W2) and that the late respondents are non-respondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Statistical significance was estimated by Chi-square test in SPSS 22.0 (Atif & Richards, 2012). Statistically significant differences were not seen in all four demographic indicators indicating no systematic bias exists between W1 and W2. No association was found between W1 and W2 based on gender, marital status, city of residence and education (vender = 3.17, p = 0.20; x2marital status = 5.61, p = 0.18; v2city = 3.11,p = 0.35 and x2 education = 4.76, p = 0.25) respectively. These analyses indicate that the non-response bias problem was not present.

The purpose of the study was empirically tested in two parts; Model 1 (M1) and Model 2 (M2). Model 1 was aimed at analysing the relationship between benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and brand positioning effectiveness as a second-order construct. Model 2, on the contrary, tests the relationships between benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and brand positioning effectiveness as a first-order construct having five dimensions (namely; favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, credibility, and sustainability).

With the help of confirmatory factor analysis, measures were purified (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). All items were reliable because their factor loadings were greater than the cut-off point of 0.71 (Comrey and Lee, 1992) (see table 2.8). The sources of scale items used in this study are summarized in table 2.5. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) helped in examining the unidimensional of items (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). CFA was used to determine the fit of the proposed measurement model along with an estimation of the validity and reliability of the latent constructs (Shah & Goldstein, 2006).

Model Estimation

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Knott & Bartholomew, 1999) was followed by path analysis (O'Rourke & Hatcher, 2013). Structural Equation Modelling was performed in Amos 22.0 with maximum likelihood estimation. Composite reliability is a superior internal consistency measure having a recommended cut-off level of 0.70 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). The average variance extracted (AVE) has been used to assess the convergent validity of the latent constructs (John & Reve, 1982). AVE for all the constructs should be greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) confirming that the constructs have items that reflect the latent constructs (Segars, 1997; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). To analyze discriminant validity for M1 (see table 4), correlations between constructs helped to confirm for each construct whether they were smaller than the square root of the AVE (Chin, 1998). Numbers in parenthesis on the diagonal show the square root of AVE. For discriminant validity to hold, numbers in each row and column should be smaller than the numbers in the parenthesis in that row and column (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To analyze discriminant validity for M2 (see table 5), correlations between constructs were estimated separately to confirm for each of the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness whether they were smaller than the square root of the AVE (Chin, 1998).

Results

The hypotheses have been tested in two models; M1 and M2 (see figure 1.1 - 1.4). The estimated path coefficients, ^-value and decision rule are summarized in table 6. These results indicated statistical support for most of the hypotheses. Path analysis for M1 (H1 - H3) produced the following model fit statistics: x2 = 1934.42; df = 598; p = .00; x2/df = 3.23; CFI = .86; TLI = .87; GFI = .77; NFI = .81; RMSEA = .05. The results fully supported the hypotheses about the effect of benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy and feature brand positioning strategy on overall brand positioning effectiveness (?, ß = .211, p < .001; ?, ß = .442, p < .000; H3, ß = .201, p < .001 respectively). However, the effect of each brand positioning strategy on brand positioning effectiveness varies in strength.

Path analysis for M2 (H5 - ?) produced the following model fit statistics: x2 = 1897.15; df = 667; p = .00; x2/df = 2.84; CFI = .931; TLI = .844; GFI = .817; NFI = .736; RMSEA = .071. M2 estimated the relationships of three brand positioning strategies with five individual dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Significant relationships were found between benefit brand positioning strategy and favourability, uniqueness, credibility and sustainability dimensions (H4a, ß = .300, p < .011; H6a, ß = .411, p < .002; Ha, ß = .166, p < .000; H8a, ß = .200, p < .000). However, relationship of benefit brand positioning strategy with dissimilarity dimension of brand positioning effectiveness was not significant (Ha, ß = -.081, p < .235) thus implying that brand managers while marketing their brand should communicate benefit brand positioning strategy by focusing more on favourability, uniqueness, credibility and sustainability attributes of the high street fashion apparel brand.

The relationship of feature brand positioning strategy with favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness and credibility dimensions has shown empirical support (Hb, ß = .155, p < .000; Hsb, ß = .241, p < .005; ?, ß = .141, p < .000; Hb, ß = .201, p < .000), however, feature brand positioning strategy was not found to have a relationship with sustainability (H8b, ß = .340, p < .068). Therefore, brand managers focusing on product features must take into account that attribute. Feature based brand positioning is not considered novel by consumers and that it can be easily copied by competitors in the marketplace.

The relationship of surrogate brand positioning strategy with favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness and sustainability has shown empirical support (Hc, ß = .241, p < .000; Hc, ß = .251, p < .013; H6c, ß = .107, p < .000; ?, ß = .461, p < .000), however, relationship of surrogate brand positioning strategy with credibility dimension was not found significant (H7c, ß = - .041, p < .007). This implies that marketers who choose to base their marketing communications on surrogate brand positioning strategy need not emphasize on the trustworthiness of the brand. Brand positioning based on surrogacy will have a negative impact on the credibility of the fashion retail brand

To address the research question; does benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy and feature brand positioning strategy differ in terms of their effectiveness? This study tests the difference between beta coefficients by demonstrating that the point estimates are likely to be statistically different from each other when the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (via bootstrap with 3000 re-samples) overlap by not more than 50% (Cumming, 2009). If the confidence intervals (lower and upper) overlap by less than 50%, the standardized beta coefficients would be considered significantly different from each other (Cumming, 2009). Table 7 summarizes the results of the test to estimate the difference between beta coefficients. As seen in figure 1.5, there appears to be no overlap in the confidence intervals implying that benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy and feature brand positioning strategy differ statistically significantly from each other in terms of their effectiveness.

Discussion

The position of a brand is important for the success of marketing initiatives (Keller & Aaker, 1992; Blankson & Kalafatis, 2004; Singh, Kalafatis, & Ledden, 2014), the results of this study offer important insights into how a fashion brand can proactively enhance its position relative to competitors' brands. Data analysis provides support for the presence of a significant positive relationship between benefit brand positioning strategy and overall brand positioning effectiveness. Marketers focusing on marketing communications strategy explaining the benefits of the consumption of a brand such as benefits related to social-image and benefits are more likely to build an effective brand positioning in consumers' minds (Wind, 1982; Crawford, 1985). The relationship of surrogate brand positioning strategy with overall brand positioning effectiveness was found to be positive. This can be attributed to consumers' association with a fashion brand based on image and personality as opposed to the actual product offering. Feature brand positioning strategy was also found to have a positive relationship with overall brand positioning effectiveness. This finding implies that consumers do take an interest in the tangible features of a brand.

Out of the three brand positioning strategies, surrogate brand positioning strategy and benefit brand positioning strategy were found to have a relatively stronger relationship with brand positioning effectiveness, thereby lending support for marketing communications portraying the symbolic meaning of brand use. Sengupta (2005) also provides support for the result by stating that consumers are more interested in the benefits provided as a result of product use rather and features. Benefits that are realized from the use of a brand have a greater relevance in the consumers' evaluation of the brand than the tangible attributes of the brand (Bagozzi, 1986) because benefits of product consumption are intended to solve a problem. Especially in case of fashion brands it is more relevant on a conceptual plan because it becomes increasingly difficult to offer new products, with added features to consumers, which can add value to their product consumption behaviour. Fashion retail industry is saturated with brands which provide identical features of the product (Ries & Trout, 1986), therefore, standing out among the competitors in the marketplace with marketing geared towards feature brand positioning strategy may be difficult (Aaker, 2003), with special reference to product categories where the performance of products is perceived to be similar (Vriens & Hofstede, 2000; Majahan & Wind, 2002).

Findings indicate that the relationship of feature brand positioning strategy with all five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness was not significant; the relationship with favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness and credibility dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness were significant but not with the sustainability dimension. This can be attributed to the fact that features in the fashion retail industry can easily be replicated by competitors in the marketplace (Moe & Fader, 2001), therefore, sustainability as a dimension of brand positioning effectiveness does not seem to have a relationship with feature brand positioning strategy. This may also mean that consumers are smart decision-makers when they choose a fashion brand. Feature brand positioning strategy does not seem to have a relationship with sustainability dimension of brand positioning effectiveness; it may imply that feature brand positioning strategy may not be suitable to sustain a strong brand image in consumers' perception about a fashion brand.

Benefit brand positioning strategy was found to have a positive relationship with favourability, uniqueness, credibility and sustainability dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Advertisements that help a brand build consumer-brand association portraying uniqueness of the brand and communicate favourability benefits about the brand are likely to be more effective. Benefit brand positioning strategy also shows support for a brand in maintaining effective brand positioning which is difficult to copy by competitors because it is sustainable. Brand positioning based on highlighting the benefits of the brand seems highly unlikely to create a perception of dissimilarity of a brand as compared to other brands.

The findings of the study lend support to the relationship between surrogate brand positioning strategy and favourability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, sustainability dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Surrogate brand positioning strategy tends to produce more self-relevant meanings for consumers (Fuchs, 2008). Marketing communication initiatives showing the intangible attributes of a brand are more likely to create favourable image in the in the minds of the consumers. Surrogate brand positioning strategy was also found to be likely to help a fashion brand create a strong sustainable perception in the minds of the consumers. Fashion brands must aim to market their brands with the help of surrogate brand positioning strategy because the perception developed because of surrogate positioning is difficult to replicate. Surrogate brand positioning strategy of a brand was not found likely to be viewed as credible by the consumers as the relationship was insignificant but negative.

Statistical estimates for RQ (see table 7) show that benefit brand positioning strategy is less likely to be effective than surrogate brand positioning strategy. This result is in contradiction to what Fuchs (2008) proposed i.e. benefit brand positioning strategy is more effective than surrogate brand positioning strategy. These opposing results were likely to be present because of the type of industry under consideration. This study tested whether the difference in beta co-efficients was statistically significantly different and estimates show that benefit brand positioning strategy, surrogate brand positioning strategy and feature brand positioning strategy are statistically different in terms of their effectiveness. There seems to be no overlap in their respective perception in the minds of the consumers. Consumers were found able to identify different fashion brands whose marketing initiatives were based on benefit brand positioning strategy versus those whose marketing communication was based on surrogate brand positioning strategy.

In conclusion, for fashion brands, marketing efforts must be focused on generating content targeted less towards highlighting the benefits of the products and more so on expressing how product consumption will lead to surrogacy (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Moreover, benefit brand positioning strategy is more effective than feature brand positioning strategy (Azmat & Lakhani, 2015). This study lends support to the proposition that fashion brands can better create consumer-brand associations if their brand positioning is based on surrogacy and not on tangible attributes of the product. Schiffman and Kanuk (2007) have reported opposing results, as they found that benefit brand positioning strategy was more effective than surrogate brand positioning strategy.

Managerial Implications

This study proposes that marketing managers should know which of the three brand positioning strategies is likely to result in better brand positioning effectiveness in the case of fashion apparel retail brands in Pakistan. In high street fashion industry, brand positioning strategy based on the associations created by intangible external aspects of the brand and by intangible aspects of the brand (i.e. surrogate brand positioning strategy) is likely to be more effective in creating a positive perception in consumers' minds than brand positioning strategy based on tangible attributes of the brand i.e. feature brand positioning strategy (Keller, 1993; Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000). This study makes suggestions to brand managers that if they are to survive the anticipated decline in the fashion industry growth, they may prioritize by basing brand positioning on either surrogate brand positioning strategy or benefit brand positioning strategy. Marketing campaigns communicating surrogate brand positioning strategy are likely to develop brand associations if the emphasis is placed on communicating that the brand is favourable, dissimilar and sustainable but brand does not necessarily have to be credible. Marketers must make their brands into personalities. Their image must be based on intangible benefits of product consumption. The role of a fashion brand should go beyond selling clothes, it should have a larger purpose with an emphasis on creating consumer-brand associations based on heroism and symbolism.

Benefit brand positioning strategy might be opted as a second best option for brands to build an effective perception in the minds of the consumers. Marketing campaigns focused towards visually communicating social benefits of the product offering are likely to perform better among the consumers. This study looks further into the individual effects of Benefit brand positioning strategy on the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. Results indicate that if a fashion brand's marketing goal is to create a unique perception then managers must highlight the intangible benefits of product consumption. While communicating benefits of the brand, it is highly likely that brand managers can develop a relative perception which will be difficult to copy, thus preventing a fashion brand from becoming a 'me too' brand.

The acknowledgement of the significance of five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness may facilitate brand managers to; 1) get informed insights into the soundness of the position of the brand relative to competition in the marketplace, and 2) support marketing managers in creating relevant brand positioning strategies and hence marketing communications. More specifically, the brand positioning effectiveness measure enables brand managers to detect the relative strength of the five dimensions of brand positioning effectiveness. In conclusion, this study consolidates means by which marketing managers can take proactive strategic decisions to strengthen the relative position of the firm's offering amidst the fierce competition present in the fashion industry.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This research is not free of limitations which restrict the generalizations of its findings. Future research may consider fashion retail brands which include other product categories, for example, kids wear brands, ready-to-wear brands, made to measure brands, wholesale brands and others (maternity wear and clothes for working women). The scope of this study was restricted to three brand positioning strategies (benefit brand positioning strategy, feature brand positioning strategy and surrogate brand positioning strategy), however, researchers might consider the possibility of employing a hybrid brand positioning strategy in which "elements from more than one positioning strategy are used" (Wind, 1982; Chernev, 2007; Ozcan & Sheinin, 2008).

The main purpose of the brand positioning effectiveness measurement scale is to estimate how effectively a brand has been positioned in the consumers' mind based on the choice of brand positioning strategy, however, it does not analyse whether a brand manager has identified and targeted the right audience of consumers based on the classical STP theory of brand positioning (Crawford, Urban, & Buzas, 1983). Perhaps a combination of segmentation tools and brand positioning analysis would be a better approach towards understanding the effectiveness of brand positioning strategies (DeSarbo, Grewal, & Scott, 2008, Natter, Andreas, Udo, & Alfred, 2008). Such integrated models can help give in depth insight by simultaneously studying positioning and segmentation issues.

In this study, three brand positioning strategies that are commonly used in high street fashion retail industry were analysed. No attempt was made to study brands which are positioned on radically unique features or benefits (Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994; Aaker, 2003; Broniarczyk & Gershoff, 2003; Desai & Rathneshwar, 2003). Further areas of investigation about the success of brand positioning strategies would involve collection of data from brand managers as well and making inference about the efficacy of a brand positioning strategy by using such data.

Sidebar

Cite this paper: Shahid, S., & Zafar, S. (2019). Brand positioning strategies and their effectiveness: A case of high street _fashion retail brands in Pakistan. Paradigms, 13(2), 90-99._

References

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A., Rajeev, B., & John, G. M. (1992), Advertising management. London: Prentice Hall.

Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, G. (1982). Positioning your product, Business Horizons, 25(3), 56-62.

Aaker, D. (2003). The power of the branded differentiator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 83.

Anderson, J. C., & Carpenter, G. S. (2005), Brand Strategy for Business Markets, in Kellogg on Branding. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.

Atif, A., & Richards (2012). Estimating Non-Response Bias in a Web-based Survey of Technology Acceptance: A Case Study of Unit Guide Information Systems. 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Geelong.

Aulakh, P. S., & Gencturk, E. F. (2000). International principal-agent relationships-control, governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 29,521-538.

Azmat, M., & Lakhani, A. S. (2015). Impact of brand positioning strategies on consumer standpoint (A consumer's Perception). Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 15, 109-117.

Bagozzi, R. (1986). Principles of Marketing Management. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Bijmolt, Tammo H. A., Michel W., Rik G. M., & Wayne S. DeSarbo (1998). Judgments of brand similarity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 249- 68.

Blankson, C., & Crawford, J. C. (2012). Impact of positioning strategies on service firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 311-316.

Blankson, C., Kalafatis, S. P., Cheng, J. M. S., & Hadjicharalambous, C. (2008). Impact of positioning strategies on corporate performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 106-122.

Blankson, C., & Stavros P. K., (2004). The development and validation of a scale measuring consumer/ customer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 5-43.

Boatswain, M. L. (2015). Decoy effects in brand positioning (Doctoral dissertation). Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.

Bridges, S., Kevin L. K., & Sanjoy S. (2000). Communication strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 1-11.

Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff A. D. (2003). The reciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 161-75.

Brooksbank, R. (1994). The anatomy of marketing positioning strategy. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 12(4), 10-14.

Camiciottoli, B. C., & Ranfagni, S. (2015). Brand personality alignment and consumer engagement to define competitive positioning in online fashion communities: An interdisciplinary methodology. Global Fashion Management Conference at Florence Proceedings, 348-353.

Carpenter, G. S., Rashi, G., & Kent N. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 339-50.

Chaturvedi, A., & Carroll, J. D. (1998). A Perceptual Mapping Procedure for Analysis of Proximity Data to Determine Common and Unique Product-Market Structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 111(2), 268-84.

Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory reasoning in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(49), 430-444.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.

Clancy, K. J., & Trout, J. (2002). Brand Confusion. Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 22.

Clancy, K. J., & Krieg, P. (2007). Your gut is still not smarter than your head. Hoboken: John. Wiley & Sons.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis, 2, 1992.

Crawford, M. C., David J. U., & Thomas E. B. (1983). Positioning: A Conceptual Review and Taxonomy of Alternatives, Working Paper No. 354, University of Michigan.

Crawford, C. M. (1985). A New Positioning Typology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2(4), 243-253.

Cumming, G. (2009). Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Statistics in medicine, 28(2), 205-220.

Czepiel, John A. (1992), Competitive Marketing Strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Dacin, P. A., & Daniel C. S. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 229-42.

DeSarbo, W., Rajdeep G., & Crysal J. S. (2008). A cluster wise bilinear multidimensional scaling methodology for simultaneous segmentation and positioning analyses. Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of marketing research, 37(1), 60-71.

Dillon, W. R., Teresa D., & Thomas J. M. (1986). Evaluating alternative product positioning strategies, Journal of Advertising Research, 26(August), 29-35.

Dillon, W. R., Thomas J. M., Amna, K., & Soumen, M. (2001). Understanding what is in a brand rating: a model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(November), 415-29.

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-92.

Erdem, T., Joffre S., & Ana V. (2006). Brands as Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study, Journal of Marketing, 70(January), 34-49.

Evans, M. J., Luiz M., & Fred. W. van Raaij (1996). Applied consumer behaviour. London: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.

Fuchs, C. (2008). Brand Positioning through the Consumers' Lens (Doctoral Dissertation). University Wien, Vienna, Austria.

Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand positioning strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44 (11), pp. 1763-1786.

Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2012). Customer-perceived positioning effectiveness: conceptualization, operationalization, and implications for new product managers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 229-244.

Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in nursing & health, 20(3), 269-274.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98-107.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 128-134.

Kalafatis, S. P., Tsogas, M. H., & Blankson, C. (2000). Positioning strategies in business markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(6), 416-437.

Kapferer, J. (2004). The new strategic brand management (3rd ed). London: Kogan Page.

Kaul, A., & Rao, V. R. (1995). Research for product positioning and design decisions: An integrative review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(4), 293-320.

Keller, K., L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 1-22.

Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. L. (2006). Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-59.

Knott, M., & Bartholomew, D. J. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis (7th ed). Edward Arnold.

Graeff, T. R. (1997). Comprehending product attributes and benefits: the role of product knowledge and means-end chain inferences. Psychology & Marketing, 14(2), 163-83.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616-632.

Hooley, G., Piercy, N., & Nicoulaud, B. (2012). Marketing strategy and competitive positioning (5th ed). London: Pearson Education.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M., (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods, 3(4), 424-453.

John, G., & Reve, T. (1982). The reliability and validity of key informant data from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. Journal of marketing research, 517-524.

Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing Management (11th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Lineback, J. F., & Thompson, K. J. (2010). Conducting nonresponse bias analysis for business surveys. In 2010 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), Vancouver, Canada, July.

MacInnis, D. J. & Bernd J. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(October), 1-23.

Moe, Wendy W. and Peter S. Fader (2001). Modeling Hedonic Portfolio Products: A Joint Segmentation Analysis of Music Compact Disc Sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 376-85.

Mahajan, V., & Wind, Y. (2002). Got emotional product positioning? Marketing Management 11 (3): 36-41.

Martuza, V. R. (1977). Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education. Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated.

Myers, J. H. (1996). Segmentation and Positioning for Strategic Marketing Decisions. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Natter, M., Andreas, M., Udo, W., & Alfred, T. (2008). Planning new tariffs at tele. ring - the application and impact of an integrated segmentation, targeting, and positioning tool. Marketing Science, forthcoming.

O'Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Sas Institute.

Ozcan, T., & Daniel, S. (2008). Completeness as a product positioning strategy. Proceedings of the 2008 AMA Winter Educator's Conference. Feb. 15-18; Austin, Texas: American Marketing Association.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. The Journal of Marketing, 135-145.

Pham, M. T., & Muthukrishnan, A. V. (2002). Search and Alignment in Judgment Revisions: Implications for Brand Positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 18- 30.

Pike, S. (2012). Destination positioning opportunities using personal values: Elicited through the Repertory Test with Laddering Analysis. Tourism Management, 33(1), 100-107.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1986). Marketing warfare. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3(4), 77-82.

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2007). Consumer behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Segars, A H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107-121.

Sengupta, S. (2005). Brand Positioning: Strategies for competitive advantage (2nd ed). New Delhi: McGraw Hill Publishing.

Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 148-169.

Singh, J., Kalafatis, S. P., & Ledden, L. (2014). Consumer perceptions of cobrands: The role of brand positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(2), 145-159.

Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers' brand and category perceptions: some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454-68.

Tepper, T. K., William, O., & Gary L. H. (2001), "Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 50-66.

Thompson, D. V., Rebecca W. H., & Roland T. R. (2005). Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431-42.

Trout, J. and Rivkin, S. (2010). Repositioning. London: Mc-Graw Hill Companies.

Tybout, A. M., & Sternthal, B. (2005). Brand Positioning. In Kellogg on Branding. Eds. Alice M. Tybout and Tim Calkins. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 11-26.

Vriens, M., & Hofstede, F. (2000). Linking Attributes, Benefits, and Consumer Values: A Powerful Approach to Market Segmentation, Brand Positioning, and Advertising Strategy. Marketing Research, 12(Fall), 5-10.

Wiedmann, K. P., Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. W. (2001). The Mannmaven: An agent for diffusing market information. Journal of Marketing Communications, 7(4), 195-212.

Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2010). A note on structural equation modeling estimates of reliability. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 66-81.

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(April), 1-14.