Critical Analysis of Brand Strategy
Strategic marketing decisions are vital tools in determining the fate of a company. Distinctiveness and centrality are the major focuses on companies. As such, companies are prompted to strike a balance between centrality and distinctiveness to achieve optimum performance. Distinctiveness refers to a company’s prominence over the others, while centrality is how symbolic it is of its category. The paper is a reflective essay on “A Better Way to Map Brand Strategy” article by Niraj Dawar and Charan Bagga. The authors explore the difference between “distinctiveness” and “Centrality” using a C-D map.
The article by Dawar and Bagga is very educative and interesting. Centrality and distinctiveness are vital aspects of assessing the company’s performance. In this regard, proper tools to aid in balancing between these variables is vital. Nonetheless, establishing such tools has proved challenging to most marketers, considering that choices influence both market perception of the brand and its performance. In this regard, the authors introduced a new tool called the central-distinctiveness (C-D) map for establishing better strategies to enhanced growth and profitability (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). The article described various benefits of using the C-D tool to analyze both business performance and brand positioning, over the traditional methods. I agreed with most of the points highlighted to establish C-D maps as the better way to plan brand strategy, although I disagreed with some.
I agree with the authors’ illustration of the benefits of using the C-D tool to analyze both business performance and brand positioning, over the traditional methods. Brand positions information for companies is mainly acquired through perceptual positioning maps (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). On the other hand, business performance is indicated based on typical performance metrics such as profitability or market share. As a beneficial tool, the C-D map links business performance and brand perceptions (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). The tool indicates a brand’s relative position in the market place based on the centrality, and also captures the financial performance along with a given metric such as price or volume (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). The tool presents an effective way to predict performance and assess the desired market position,
Importantly to note, proving a brand’s worth to the market audience is a challenging aspect faced by companies. Once a brand has won the audiences’ interest, the company will have the responsibility to prove to the consumers that it can authenticate the claims and credibility (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). If such concerns are not addressed, the audience will automatically shift their interest to other brands and getting them back involves lots of efforts. On this note, distinctiveness might have played the role of winning the customers’ interest. However, if the brand’s representation in its category is not stable, the customers may fail to invest their trust with such a brand.
The author’s presentation of a four-quadrant chart was essential. The aspirational quadrant represents brands with high centrality and distinctiveness, unconventional for brands with low centrality and high distinctiveness, mainstream for those with high centrality and low distinctiveness, and the peripheral brands with low distinctiveness and centrality (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). Such distinction using the C-D map makes it easier for companies to assess their brand market performance and position.
I agree with the effects of distinctiveness and centrality on the business performance regarding price and sales volume as discussed in the article. Based on the authors’ regression analysis, increased centrality is associated with higher sales volume, but at lower prices (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). Such explains the high number of sales for Toyota car brands in 2014. Contrary, increased distinctiveness decreases sales volume at higher prices (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). Reflecting on the chart, Porsche is the most expensive brand and with the lowest number of sales. Nonetheless, one would wonder why some brands concentrate on increasing distinctiveness at the cost of centrality despite the decrease in sales volume associated thereof. Notably, this scenario has the benefit of allowing a brand to command the products’ prices.
I agree that C-D maps are better tools to assess true competitors instead of perceived ones. Establishing the true competitors is important. Unlike the typical business competition maps that only assess a few brand’s characteristics, C-D map examines the customer perception (Dawar & Bagga, 2015). Based on this, companies can understand the market and note the areas that need actions for improvement.
Generally, C-D maps help the company to adopt viable strategic decisions and are effective tools of assessment when used correctly and comprehensively. Nonetheless, the tools are complex to understand and implement since they involve numerous variables that need to be considered in mining the data produced in a C-D map. Indeed, conflicting results are expected while using this technique and especially when demographics and geography are taken into account. Such a scenario makes using the tool a difficult way to establish market strategies considering the technicality involved in analyzing data.
In review, the article presents important information for the companies that aim to balance their centrality and distinctiveness for optimum profitability. The C-D maps technique is a vital tool for companies in assessing their market position and performance. The choice of beer products and the automobile industry was an excellent demonstration of how C-D maps can be used effectively. Although the benefits of this tool were clearly illustrated, some aspects were contradicting.
References
Dawar, N., & Bagga, C. K. (2015). A better way to map brand strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 90-97.