Positioning strategies of international service brands

Positioning strategies of international andmulticultural-oriented service brands

Charles Blankson

Department of Marketing & Logistics, College of Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA, and

Stavros P. KalafatisSchool of Marketing, Kingston University Business School, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, UK

AbstractPurpose – This article aims to examine positioning strategies of international and multicultural-oriented service brands.Design/methodology/approach – Following review of the literature and pilot study, three main populations (executives and experts, companies’marketing communications, and the target group of consumers) were examined. The methodology concerned triangulation research involving face-to-face long interviews, secondary data, content analysis and mail survey.Findings – The paper highlights that while no single positioning strategy is significant across the four card brands (Visa, MasterCard, Amex and DinersClub), “the brand name” positioning strategy appears to be the most preferred among Visa, MasterCard and Amex and not Diners Club. The findingsalso show that “top of the range” positioning strategy is favored among Amex and Diners Club card brands. However, “country of origin” positioningstrategy is incompatible within the study setting.Research limitations/implications – Apart from the low response rate from survey of the general public, another limitation of this study is theconcentration on a single sector of the services industry. The latter poses difficulties for generalization across all service brands.Practical implications – Service managers now have an insight into the positioning activities of the plastic card brand sector. These serve as buildingblocks and benchmarks for appreciating and operationalizing the concept of positioning – a research issue that is missing in the extant literature.Originality/value – This study is a step forward in the operationalization of the concept of positioning. The research also provides diagnosis of thecongruence between management’s presumed positioning strategies, firm’s actual positioning practices and target group’s perceptions of thepositioning strategies. Without such knowledge, managers cannot expect to choose the best competitive options to defend or enhance their positions inthe market place.

Keywords Product positioning, Credit cards, Research methods, United Kingdom, Services, Financial services

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executivereaders can be found at the end of this issue.

Introduction

The literature review shows that since one of the objectives ofofferings’ long-term competitive advantage stems frompositioning activities (Porter, 1996; Hooley et al., 2001;Hooley and Greenley, 2005), and the fact that firm’scommunications strategies emanate from positioningstrategies (Seggev, 1982; Rossiter and Percy, 1997; Aldenet al., 1999; Fill, 1999), then ceterasis perabis, the basis ofevaluating the effectiveness of the offerings’ positions in themarket place and justification for advertising spend ought tobe the assessment of the desired positioning strategies beingpursued. Moreover, despite the acknowledged commercialimportance of services as valuable assets and sources ofdifferentiation in marketing strategy (O’Cass and Grace,2004), and the fact that positioning of offerings (e.g. service

brands) is an important dimension in the creation of

competitive advantages (Porter, 1996; Hooley et al., 2001;

Hooley and Greenley, 2005), review of the literature reveals

that empirically derived research aimed at the examination of

positioning strategies employed by service brands appears to

have received little attention from marketing researchers.

Essentially, it is the intention of this research to examine the

positioning strategies of international and multicultural-

oriented service brands.Positioning is concerned with the attempt to modify the

tangible characteristics and the intangible perceptions of a

marketable offering in relation to the competition (Arnott,

1992; Arnott and Easingwood, 1994). Review of the literature

uncovers several comments and definitions of positioning.

However, Arnott’s (1994) definition appears to be

comprehensive in that although it is conceptual, it has

strategic implications and capable of being operationalized.

The author writes that positioning is concerned with

management’s attempt to modify the tangible characteristics

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

21/6 (2007) 435–450

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]

[DOI 10.1108/08876040710818921]

The authors thank the two anonymous JSM reviewers for their insight,constructive criticisms, and suggestions on an earlier version of themanuscript. They are also grateful for the suggestions and helpfuldirections from the Editor.

Received: November 2005Revised: March 2006Accepted: June 2006

435

and the intangible perceptions of a marketable offering inrelation to the competition. He formally defines positioningthat: “. . .it is the deliberate, proactive, iterative process ofdefining, measuring, modifying, and monitoring consumerperceptions of a marketable offering . . . ” According to theauthor, the application of positioning involves certain relatedactivities. These include defining the dimensions of aparticular perceptual space that adequately represents thetarget audience’s perceptions; measuring objects locationswithin that space and modifying actual characteristics of theobject and perceptions of the target audience via a marketingcommunications strategy. In other words, the process ofpositioning can be described as iterative and requiresdeliberate and proactive involvement of the marketer.

The author’s comments appear to be explained in terms ofconsumer and managerial/organizational perspectives. Inaddition, it appears to be emanating from three key issues,namely, consumers, companies, and competitors. Usingservice brands as an illustration, Arnott’s (1993) commentson positioning are adapted for this study and are taken furtherby examining how positioning strategies are actually employedby service brand managers in the plastic card industry. For thepurposes of this paper, Worthington’s (1990, 1992, 1994)description of plastic cards (i.e. credit cards and charge cards)(see Appendix 1) is adapted.

Background to the study

Over the years, much has been written in the area of servicepositioning (see for example, Lovelock, 1983; Easingwoodand Mahajan, 1989; Dibb and Simkin, 1991; Fisher, 1991;Arnott, 1992, 1993, 1994; Young, 1993; Arnott andEasingwood, 1994; Javalgi et al., 1995; Kara et al., 1996).However, due to the special characteristics of servicescompared to physical goods, not only are services difficultfor consumers to compare with competing services (Donnellyet al., 1985 cited in Walker et al., 1996) but they posechallenges in their positioning (Fisher, 1991; Zeithaml andBitner, 1996; Bitner, 1997) by marketing managers. Thisassertion is evidenced in the work of Assael (1985) who statesthat: “positioning a service is more difficult than positioning aproduct because of the need to communicate vague andintangible benefits” There is also concern and apprehensionamong managers due to the absence of empirically-derivedpositioning strategies capable of serving as benchmarks in thepositioning of offerings (Piercy, 1991, de Chernatony, 1994;Piercy, 2005).

Research undertaken by Darley and Smith (1993) supportsthe above contention and concludes that, in positioning,tangible product attributes provide more favorable consumerresponse than intangible attributes (with similar importanceand value). The authors claim that when equivalent tangibleand intangible attributes are available for advertisingpositioning purposes, the former can often be expected tobe more effective in affecting consumers’ perceptions than thelatter. This is because in the case of intangible attributesadvertising (i.e. services), consumers have no objectiveperceptual criterion and therefore in most cases, advertisersrely on consumers’ emotions.

The issue of tangible and intangible attributes advertising isalso taken up by Cutler and Javalgi (1993) whose researchreveals that, advertisements of services, overall, contain moreemotional appeals than product advertisements. The authors’research show that in order to embark on positioning

strategies, there was a high proportion of advertisementswhich use emotion to improve the tangibility of services.According to the authors, other tactics used to increasetangibility of services were personalised headlines and thesymbolic representation of the service. Ellis and Mosher(1993) claim that due to the issue of tangibility andintangibility: “. . .professional service firms are faced withconsiderations that are unique as compared to productmarketers . . . ” Ellis and Mosher’s (1993) research, whichinvolved accounting firms in the USA recommended that, inorder to cope with the issue of positioning in services, acomprehensive positioning framework that influences each ofthe four characteristics of services (i.e. intangibility,inseparability, perishability and heterogeneity) through theapplication of the appropriate marketing tactics is imperative.

Operationalizing the tangibilization of services has howeverbeen found to be problematic and not adequately taken onboard by service managers (see Grove et al., 2002; Mittal,2002). For instance, Mittal (2002) writes that in spite ofcreative approaches including: physical representation;performance documentation; performance episode; serviceconsumption documentation; and service consumptionepisode (see also, George and Berry, 1981; Legg and Baker,1987; Mittal, 1999) put forward in the academic servicesliterature, it is hard to come by service brands that haveembraced these approaches. Taking Mittal’s (2002) writingand Grove et al.’s (2002) research into account, we assert thatthe lack of interest and/or inaction on the part of servicesmarketers to tangibilize their offerings may have to do with,first, the lack of documented empirically based normativeguidelines/approaches and second, the absence of empiricallybased positioning strategies capable of being operationalizedby service marketers (Blankson and Kalafatis, 2001, 2004).

As noted earlier, it is important to mention that despite thesuggestions for service managers to tangibilize their offeringsin their marketing communications (Berry and Parasuraman,1991; Day, 1992), a recent research undertaken by Grove et al.(2002) found that service communications lacked in tactics totangibilize their offerings and that they have also overlookedan opportunity to establish integrated marketingcommunications. As asserted by Mittal (2002), in spite ofthe efficacy of approaches to tangibilize services put forwardin the literature (Berry and Clark, 1986; Stafford, 1996, citedin Mittal, 2002), it is surprising to find that approaches seenin practice often fail to capture and communicate the coreservice benefit or at times, even make it worse (see Mittal,2002).

Several commentators however have claimed that despitethe inherent differences between physical goods and services(Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996; Bitner, 1997), there are overlapsbetween services and physical goods (Baker, 1981; Levitt,1981; Middleton, 1983) which means that there is nocompelling reason to adopt different positioning strategies inservices (see, Wyckham et al., 1975; Buttle, 1986). Againstthis background, writers including Shostack (1987), Arnottand Easingwood (1994), Bateson (1995) and Zeithaml andBitner (1996) contend that competitive strategies can befollowed if positioning decisions take into account issuesrelated to the complexity and variability of the service(s) onoffer. In other words, the contextual specifics of services mustbe taken into consideration when assessing/evaluating theemployment of positioning strategies. Moreover, it is assertedthat in view of the growing demand for accountability andjustification for dollar advertising spend, it would be

Positioning strategies of service brands

Charles Blankson and Stavros P. Kalafatis


Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

436

incumbent on marketing managers and advertising executivesto justify whether their positioning strategies actually appearin marketing communications (Rossiter and Percy, 1997); andwhether the employment of positioning strategies haveaffected/impacted consumers’ perceptions.

Following observation in the study setting, Visa,MasterCard, American Express (Amex) and Diners Clubcard brands (see Appendix 1) were conveniently chosenbecause not only are these card brands international andmulticultural oriented but they appear to belong to twodeferring spectrums in terms of their operation, branding andprimary target audiences. Specifically, while Visa andMasterCard brands pursue the middle class and massmarket, Amex and Diners Club card brands primarily aimtheir marketing and positioning efforts at the middle class andupper class markets. It is thus asserted that such researchsetting provided opportunity to study activities of servicebrands positioning in varied and competitive environment.

The rationale for this study is that increases in personalincome and wealth, trends towards globalization anddevelopment in information technology around the worldhave paved the way for increased global competition that inturn, has resulted in considerable innovation within the plasticcard sector (Worthington, 1996) both nationally and globally.Therefore, as competition between existing organizationsincreases and new competitors enter the sector due toderegulation in the financial services industry (Leonard andSpence, 1991), coupled with the challenges in the positioningof service brands (Blankson and Kalafatis, 1999; deChernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001), the whole subject ofpositioning in services industry is an important and timelyresearch task.

Research aim and objectives

The basic aim of this research is to examine positioningstrategies of international and multicultural-oriented servicebrands using the UK plastic card industry as a study setting.More specifically, the objectives of this study are to:. Determine the positioning strategies presumed to be

pursued by executives and experts (presumed practice).. Determine the positioning strategies employed in card

brands’ marketing communications (actual practice).. Determine the target group’s perceptions of positioning

strategies (perceived practice).

Research methodology

Population, sample frame and sampling methodThree main populations were examined in this study in orderto determine the positioning strategies and positioning efforts/activities in the plastic card industry. These are:1 executives and experts;2 companies’ marketing communications; and3 members of the general public (i.e. the target group of

consumers).

Executives and expertsExecutives of the selected plastic card brands and individualsconsidered as experts within the UK plastic card serviceindustry were considered to represent the most appropriatesources of such information. Our rationale for seekinginformation from executives and experts is in line withDalebout and Wierenga’s (1997) suggestions on the

importance of soliciting executives’ and experts’ opinionsand perceptions about complex marketing knowledge.Moreover, using experts in business related research hasbeen recognised by scholars as a valid way of obtainingconsensus and developing a holistic appreciation of therelevant issues (Winkler, 1981). The formal definition of thispopulation is marketing directors, marketing managers andproduct directors, in the case of executives. As for experts,this included advertising executives, senior research directorsof plastic card and credit institutions, managers and partnersin plastic card consultancy firms and academics with workingexperience and research interest in the UK plastic cardindustry. A combination of directories obtained fromAssociation for Payment Clearing Services (APACS), CreditCard Research Group (CCRG), The Scottish Electronic &Technology Group (SETG: a consortium involved in theorganization of conferences in the plastic card sector), plasticcard organizations’ annual reports and academic publicationsprovided the sample frame for this population.

The total number of executives and experts contacted was48 and 33, respectively. Out of these, 40 executives and 23experts were interviewed. Interviews with executives/expertswere embarked upon on two fronts. First, face-to-faceinterviews involved open-ended questions and elicitedexecutives’/experts’ statements describing theirorganizational positioning strategies. The interviews lastedbetween 45 minutes and one hour. Notes were takensupported by audio tape recording. Second, as part of theface-to-face interviews, they were presented with the eightadopted positioning strategies (see Table I) and requested torate each of the strategies on a scale of 1-7, where 1represented very irrelevant and 7 very relevant. We decided toadopt the typology of positioning strategies because not onlyis it generic (i.e. appropriate for services and goods) but it isconsumer-generated. Three main reasons underpin ourdecision:1 the call for consumer based positioning strategies by

Hooley and Saunders (1993), Dibb et al. (1997) and Fill(1999);

2 criticisms levelled against extant conceptually driven andmanagerial oriented typologies of positioning strategies byKalafatis et al. (1997, 2000); and

Table I Typology of positioning strategies

Dimensions Items/statements

1. Top of the range Upper class, top of the range, status, prestigious,

posh (five items)

2. Service Impressive service, personal attention, consider

people as important, friendly (four items)

3. Value for money Reasonable price, value for money, affordability

(three items)

4. Reliability Durability, warranty, safety, reliability (four items)

5. Attractiveness Good aesthetics, attractive, cool, elegant (four

items)

6. Country of origin Patriotism, country of origin (two items)

7. The brand name The name of the offering, leaders in the market,

extra features, choice, wide range (five items)

8. Selectivity Discriminatory, selective, high principles (three

items)

Sources: Based on Blankson and Kalafatis (2001, 2004)




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

437

3 our assertion that the absence of consumer-derivedempirically based typologies of positioning strategies mayhave caused the apparent difficulties in management’s effortto apply the concept of positioning (Piercy, 1991, deChernatony, 1994; Piercy, 2005) and the apprehensionabout the concept of positioning exhibited by researchers(see Pollay, 1985; Arnott, 1993; Rigger, 1995).

Executives rated the strategies based on their own organizationswhile experts rated the strategies based on two card brands thatthey were most familiar with. The results of this exercise arepresented in the “Discussion” and in Appendix 2 (Tables AI-AXII). The sampling method was one of convenience andavailability. It is worthy to note that while Visa and MasterCard(Credit card sector) are card schemes that are managed andoperated by executives from banks and financial institutions,this is not the case for Amex and Diners Club (Charge cardsector). The charge card sector does not operate under schemes.In other words, Amex and Diners Club manage their own cardbrands. Therefore in order to ensure uniformity in responses,data from the charge card sector were obtained from fourexecutives, each, from Amex and Diners Club. The remainderis made up of experts (see Appendix 3).

Companies’ marketing communicationsConcerning companies’ marketing communications, for thepurposes of this research, all types of pictorial and wordedadvertisements (ads) of the selected plastic card brandsappearing in the following media: television, newspapers andbrochures, pamphlets, leaflets and outdoor, i.e.advertisements from billboards, railway stations,underground stations, bus shelters, bus sides, taxi sides, andcompanies’ premises windows were collected and thencontent analyzed. The latter procedure followed goodpractices suggested in the literature (Holsti, 1969; Kirk andMiller, 1986; Weber, 1990; Fay and Currier, 1994; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). More specifically, thefrequency coding procedure, where 1 point is recorded onthe appearance of each copy point of positioning strategy wasutilized (Fay and Currier, 1994). Three types of reliability(stability, accuracy and reproducibility) and validity tests wereemployed and we are satisfied as to the reliability and validityof the detection of themes, i.e. copy points, and the codingscheme employed (Weber, 1990; Fay and Currier, 1994).

Given the diversity of the communications media, a numberof different sample frames were utilized.. Television ads. Following consultation with experts, the

CTC – The Register Limited (a London-basedorganization which is a specialist in the recording of TVads) and Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Company wereapproached, who ultimately provided the data for a fee.

. Newspaper ads. Archives from two specialist libraries, i.e.The British Library – Newspaper Library, Collindale,London – and the Kingston University Library wereconsulted.

. Brochures, pamphlets, and leaflets. Following discussionswith experts, executives and publicity managers of thechosen cards, it became apparent that suitable samplingframes for this communication were not available.Consequently, data collection involved actual collectionof data, by the authors, from companies’ premises and incommunication with marketing and product directors ofthe companies. To this end, several sets of internalcompany-developed sales promotions materials, postersand brochures carrying advertisements were obtained.

As for outdoors, in order to capture outdoor ads, the authorsintentionally carried a camera and randomly tookphotographs of ads while they travelled on buses, taxis,trains, underground trains and during planned tours and sightseeing in the London area. These were collected at differenttimes and locations during the week and at the weekend. Inall, the total number of advertisements collected for contentanalysis was 319. The lack of appropriate sampling frame ledus to adopt a convenience, non-probability sampling methodfor companies’ marketing communications.

Members of the general publicMembers of the general public (target group of consumers)comprised all individuals who use plastic cards and are ofpreferably high literate background (see Spector, 1992;Oppenheim, 1992 for justification of this decision). Thesample frame was the list of members of the United KingdomChartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) (see also, Hankinsonand Cowking, 1997). Our sample selection is in line withSinghapakdi et al. (1995) who chose members of theAmerican Marketing Association (AMA) to represent thegeneral public. Moreover, within the context of positioningresearch, we draw support for the choice of our sample fromFletcher and Bowers (1991) who claimed that in positioningresearch, the important requirement is to conduct theresearch among people who already use the product or whoare likely to use it. Additional support for the choice of thissample to represent consumers can be found in The Journal ofMarketing’s “manuscript acceptance criteria” which statesthat:

. . . carefully chosen sample groups are preferred to haphazardly chosensubjects who have little knowledge of or relevance to the subject beingstudied . . . (Journal of Marketing, 1997).

In all, 1,000 CIM members were sent questionnaires.Following a second reminder of non-respondents, 357questionnaires were received yielding an effective 35 percent response rate. The choice of the sample was based onprobability sample design and was drawn by CIM using asimple random sampling method (see also Hankinson andCowking, 1997).

MeasurementsAs noted earlier, in view of the criticisms levelled againstextant typologies of positioning strategies (Kalafatis et al.,1997, 2000), it was decided to adopt a newly developed andvalidated generic consumer derived typology of positioningstrategies (see Blankson and Kalafatis, 2001, 2004). Thelatter served as the measurement for the examination/detection of the employment of positioning strategies and isin line with Blankson (2004). The typology comprises eightfactors that collectively are measured as summated scales of30 items (see Table I).

Excluding the qualitative part of the research (i.e. face-to-face interviews), data were analyzed using analysis of variance(ANOVA) and was aimed at the assessment of measurementaccuracy and examination of response patterns of positioningstrategies of each card under examination. Justification foremploying such an analytical approach on a dependentvariable of binomial nature (in the case of communications)can be found in Cochran (1950) and Hsu and Feldt (1969). A5 per cent level of significance has been adopted throughout.Good ness of fit tests (the null hypothesis being that repliesfollowed a uniform distribution) was applied. Furthermore,the latter approach has successfully been employed in a




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

438

variety of studies addressing the issue of response rates in mailsurveys (see for example Childers et al., 1980; Hornik, 1982;Hawes et al., 1987; Jobber, 1989). In cases where significantdifferences were detected, Scheffe’s multiple comparison testswere performed to data from experts/executives and the targetgroup, while pairwise comparisons of the highest frequencywith lower frequencies (until significant differences weredetected) were performed for data related to communications.

Discussion

In order to simplify presentation of the results and for brevitydue to limitations of journal space, it was decided to presentonly the summarized results. The full ANOVA results for thefour card brands examined are placed in Appendix 2.

Visa Card

Positioning strategiesData from each of the populations were subjected to ANOVAwith null hypotheses of no significant differences in the meanvalues associated with each of the eight strategies. For clarityof interpretation, a detailed explanation of the statistical testsapplied and interpreted of the results is presented in thissection and is implicit, i.e. not repeated, in the subsequentsections. A summary of the results is provided in Table II. Foreach of the columns, separate ANOVA tests were carried outand the relevant statistics are presented in the bottom cell ofeach column (e.g. for Executives’/Experts’ views ANOVAindicates rejection of the null hypothesis). In cases where thenull hypothesis is rejected (i.e. evidence of significantdifferences between the positioning strategies), the data aresubjected to multiple comparison tests. An “ *” is used toindicate those strategies which are in the subset associatedwith the highest values.

Executives’ and experts’ viewsThe results indicate significant differences (sig.¼0.000) withfour strategies, i.e. “Service”, “Value for money”,“Reliability” and “The brand name” (see “ *”s), consideredto be dominant in the positioning of Visa Card. Examinationof the four positioning strategies appears to confirm that this

card follows mass marketing. Our assertion is encapsulated ina statement made by an executive that: “. . .we are gearedtowards the mass market . . . ” while another commented that:“. . .we aim to be financially profitable and secure market shareas we are in the mature market . . . ”. This is based on thepremise that while “Service” denotes the generic purpose ofthis card; “The brand name” indicates its clear differentiation/identification by the market as a whole; “Value for money”and “Reliability” underline the card’s effort to be perceived asaffordable, yet dependable to all segments. This is evidencedin the following comments made by an executive, “. . .I think alot of people understand what the Visa Card is . . . ” “. . .thestrength and our belief of our brand are so strong . . . ”.“. . .Visa Card is the market leader. . .it is a mature product in amature market . . . ”

Marketing communicationsOverall, i.e. across all media, “Service” and “The brandname” appear to be emphasized. In addition, it is worthnoting that of the three media, TV is seen to be associatedwith multiple positioning strategies (see Table II).Furthermore, “The brand name” appears in all three mediawhile “Service” appears in two media. As it is expected of afinancial service company, “Service” denotes an issue of duty-bound to customers, while “The brand name” projectsaspects of differentiation about the card. These findings areconsidered to be consistent with comments made by theexecutives/experts interviewed and help to emphasise earlierconclusions.

Target group’s perceptions“Reliability” and “The brand name” are the two dominantstrategies perceived by the target group to be pursued by VisaCard (see Table II). The above two positioning strategiesappear to underline aspects of dependability andexclusiveness/competitiveness perceived by the target group.

MasterCard

Positioning strategiesThe results from ANOVA and subsequent multiplecomparison tests are presented in Table III.

Table II Positioning strategies: Visa card

Populations

Communications

Positioning strategies Executives’/experts’ views Other Print TV Overall Target group’s perceptions

Top of the range £

Service £ £ £ £

Value for money £

Reliability £ £ £

Attractive £

Country of origin

The brand name £ £ £ £ £ £

Selectivity

F-ratio

df

sig.

15.130

7,296

0.000

10.556

7,248

0.000

12.070

7,112

0.000

17.406

7,464

0.006

13.445

7,464

0.000

45.571

7,701

0.000

Notes: “Other” refers to Brochures, Pamphlets, Leaflets, and Outdoors. Outdoors in this study denotes ads from billboards, bus shelters, bus sides, taxi sides,underground stations and promotional displays in organizations’ windows. The latter is implicit and it is not repeated for the rest of the card brands. An “ £ ” isused to indicate those strategies which are in the subset associated with the highest values




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

439

Executives’ and experts’ viewsFrom Table III, the analysis indicates that, with the exceptionof “Country of origin”, executives and experts consider all theother strategies as reflected in MasterCard’s positioning. Thisis considered to reflect MasterCard’s attempt to capture massmarket (see also, Visa Card) and is viewed as consistent withthe card’s universal acceptance and its relative market share.These are reflected in a statement made by an executive that:“. . .our aim on the positioning of MasterCard is to make itmore acceptable internationally and in line with the VisaCard . . . ”. The latter is evidenced in comments made byanother executive who noted that: “. . .we have actually linkedour MasterCard and Visa Card brands and positioned them atthe mass market . . . ”.

CommunicationsThe results indicate some overall consistency with “Thebrand name” being the strategy pursued in all media and issimilar to Visa Card. “Attractive” also appears to dominatetwo media (and overall). Explanation for “Service” and “Thebrand name” can be found in the debate concerning VisaCard. While the overall emphasis of “Service” appears to bethrough other media, this highlights the intensity of the latterstrategy in “below the line” (i.e. brochures, pamphlets andleaflets) media (see Table III). As for “Attractive”, thisunderlines the appealing and likeable characteristics aboutMasterCard’s service and which is in support of remarksmade by executives/experts interviewed.

Target group’s perceptionsThree strategies, i.e. “Value for money”, “Reliability”, and“The brand name” are perceived by the target group to be thedominant positioning strategies pursued by MasterCard (seeTable III). The rationale behind perceptions related to “Valuefor money” and “Reliability” is considered to reflect the card’seffort to be perceived as providing affordable, yet dependableservice. The latter is expected due to the card’s mass-marketappeal. Furthermore, “The brand name” shows MasterCard’sdifferentiation characteristics. We believe that the foregoing isexpected, due partly to the familiarity of the brand name and

the fact that consumers perceive MasterCard to becompetitive, second only to Visa Card.

American Express Card (Amex)

Positioning strategiesData for each of the three populations were tested via ANOVAand a summary of the results is presented in Table IV.

Executives’ and experts’ viewsFrom Table IV, one finds that in a similar way to MasterCard,executives and experts indicated a wide range of strategiesbeing pursued by Amex. More specifically, six out of the eightstrategies, i.e. “Top of the range”, “Service”, “Reliability”,“Attractive”, “The brand name” and “Selectivity”, werepresumed to be pursued. Although it is unexpected that anexclusive card such as Amex follows six positioning strategies(i.e. diffused approach followed by a clearly defined card), inreality, the six strategies appear to be consistent with thecard’s effort to be seen as the “top of the range”, dependableand well-known card. For example, “Top of the range”,“Attractive” and “Selectivity” positioning strategies haveconnotations of exclusivity. As was stated by an expert,“. . .Amex is profitable and at the upper end of the customermarket and not for the mass market . . . ” Another expertcommented that: “. . .Amex is a symbol of luxury andwealth. . .Amex is highly profitable and has respect fromcustomers for their integrity . . . ”.

CommunicationsThe results indicate considerable diversity in strategiespursued in media. Five main strategies are pursued in“Other”. Four are in TV while only one strategy, i.e. “Thebrand name”, is represented in print. In overall terms, “Thebrand name” appears to dominate communication (see TableIV). Considering overall communications, “The brand name”appears to indicate effort of well-established association of thecard. In addition, it shows Amex as a brand name with anexclusive position with aspects of differentiation andcompetitiveness and as discussed earlier, is commensurate

Table III Positioning strategies: Mastercard

Populations

Communications


Top of the range £

Service £ £ £

Value for money £ £

Reliability £ £

Attractive £ £ £ £

Country of origin

The brand name £ £ £ £ £ £

Selectivity £

F-ratio

df

sig.

5.964

7,216

0.000

5.367

7,136

0.000

n/a 3.377

7,40

0.006

6.032

7,200

0.000

43.446

7,772

0.000

Notes: “Other” refers to Brochures, Pamphlets, Leaflets, and Outdoors. Outdoors in this study denotes ads from billboards, bus shelters, bus sides, taxi sides,underground stations and promotional displays in organizations’ windows. The latter is implicit and it is not repeated for the rest of the card brands. An “ £ ” isused to indicate those strategies which are in the subset associated with the highest values. n/a implies analysis not possible because only one strategyemployed (see Appendix 2)




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

440

with the comments made in “Executives’ and experts’ view

above.

Target group’s perceptionsTwo strategies, i.e. “Top of the range” and “The brand

name”, appear to dominate the target group’s perceptions of

positioning activities of Amex. These results clearly are in line

with the above debate and, once more, enforce the concept of

exclusivity associated with this card.

Diners club

Positioning strategiesData collected from each population were subjected to

ANOVA tests and a summary of the results is presented in

Table V.

Executives’ and experts’ viewsTable V reveals that two strategies, i.e. “Top of the range” and“Service”, are presumed by this population as dominant in

the positioning of Diners Club Card. As is expected of a

financial service company, “Service” positioning strategy isfollowed by Diners Club Card. Furthermore, with regard to

“Top of the range” strategy, we can conclude that althoughthe growth of this card is not impressive, the card is still

viewed as exclusive. This stems from the fact that Diners ClubCard was the first card in the UK and at the time was aimed

at the executive target audience and those with high income(Worthington, 1990, 1992).

CommunicationThere seems to be some variation in the strategies appearing

in the media. Nevertheless, “Top of the range”, “The brandname” and “Selectivity” are present in both overall and in two

Table IV Positioning strategies: Amex

Populations

Communications


Top of the range £ £ £ £

Service £ £ £

Value for money

Reliability £ £ £

Attractive £

Country of origin

The brand name £ £ £ £ £

Selectivity £ £ £

F-ratio

df

sig.

12.006

7,144

0.000

4.857

7,32

0.001

240.430

8,1015

0.000

7.601

7,64

0.000

171.510

8,1127

0.000

64.567

7,779

0.000

Notes: “Other” refers to Brochures, Pamphlets, Leaflets, and Outdoors. Outdoors in this study denotes ads from billboards, bus shelters, bus sides, taxi sides,underground stations and promotional displays in organizations’ windows. The latter is implicit and it is not repeated for the rest of the card brands. An “ £ ” isused to indicate those strategies which are in the subset associated with the highest values

Table V Positioning strategies: Diners Club card

Populations

Communications


Top of the range £ £ £ £ £

Service £ £ £

Value for money

Reliability £

Attractive £ £ £

Country of origin

The Brand Name £ £ £ £

Selectivity £ £ £ £

F-ratio

df

sig.

2.286

7,121

0.032

3.429

7,8

0.053

N/a 5.714

7,24

0.001

7.143

7

0.000

30.011

7,609

0.000

Notes: “Other” refers to Brochures, Pamphlets, Leaflets, and Outdoors. Outdoors in this study denotes ads from billboards, bus shelters, bus sides, taxi sides,underground stations and promotional displays in organizations’ windows. The latter is implicit and it is not repeated for the rest of the card brands. An “ £ ” isused to indicate those strategies which are in the subset associated with the highest values; n/a implies analysis not possible because only one strategyemployed




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

441

of the three media (see Table V). Following from the“Executives’ and experts’” views above, the pursuit of the fourpositioning strategies seems to be in accord with theexplanation given above and consequently, we will notrepeat it here.

Target group’s perceptionsFrom Table V, it is clear that there is evidence of multiplestrategies with six of the eight appearing to be dominant. Weconclude that it appears that the target group’s perception ofsix positioning strategies appear to emphasise the fact that,Diners Club Card is a “mass market” card brand. Thisrevelation however seem to be incompatible with the views ofexecutives/experts and what is employed in the media.

Conclusions, theoretical contributions andmanagerial implications

The purpose of the present research was to examinepositioning strategies of international and multiculturaloriented service brands. This study adds to the body ofknowledge on the subject of international and multiculturaloriented service brand positioning through empirical study.The findings have identified the positioning strategiesemployed by Visa, MasterCard, Amex and Diners Clubcard brands in the UK and, in the process, have determinedthe strategies:. presumed by executives/experts to be practiced;. actually practiced as exemplified in marketing

communications; and. as perceived by the target group of consumers (see Tables

II-V and Appendix 2).

In view of the scant empirically based studies on service brandpositioning, we believe that these findings are important forresearchers interested in service brands and especially theplastic card industry. Our assertion is based on the view thatsince a defensible market position is considered to be one ofthe key components of marketing’s credibility or justificationfor marketing budgets and advertising spend (Rossiter andPercy, 1997; Hooley et al., 2001; Hooley and Greenley,2005), without a proper diagnosis of the congruence betweenmanagement’s presumed positioning strategies, firm’s actualpositioning practices as seen in their marketingcommunications and target group’s perceptions of thepositioning strategies, managers cannot expect to choose thebest competitive options to defend or enhance their brandpositions in the market place (Hooley and Greenley, 2005). Asimple summary of the overall positioning strategies, i.e.overlapping, among the three populations employed by thefour card brands is presented in Table VI.

Table VI indicates that no single positioning strategy issignificant across the four card brands studied. However,“The brand name” strategy appears to be popular amongstthree out of the four card brands (i.e. Visa, MasterCard andAmex). The latter portrays branding activities among thethree card brands. This finding, which is in line with Groveet al. (2002), emphasizes that branding related strategies andtactics are crucial in the positioning of service brands (see alsoPark et al., 1986; de Chernatony, 1994). A further look atTable VI confirms that “Top of the range” is important in thecharge card sector (see Appendix 2). Such result is consistentwith charge card sector’s positioning activities that reside inthe middle class and upper class markets. This is viewed aspromoting desire for actualization of internal needs throughthe use of luxury service.

Overall, with the exception of “Country of origin”, all otherpositioning strategies (see Appendix 2) are employed, butonly to a degree. In the case of marketing communications –the channel of the application of positioning strategies, thereappears to be an integrated effort, albeit patchy, in the pursuitof all the three forms of communication (other, print and TV)by the four card brands (see Tables II-V). A furtherexamination of Tables II-V reveals that in many cases,congruence between executives’/experts’ presumptions,marketing communications effort and target group’sperception are weak. Such findings show ambiguities in thepositioning deliberations in the study setting. The latter,however, may be akin to the well-documented challengesencountered in the positioning of service brands (see forexample, Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996; Blankson and Kalafatis,1999; de Chernatony, 1999; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn,2001; O’Cass and Grace, 2004) and service marketersinaction regarding the tangibilization of their offerings (seeGrove et al., 2002; Mittal, 2002).

With regard to theoretical contributions, in response to thecall by authors such as Pollay (1985), Arnott (1992) andRigger (1995) regarding the need to further develop andrefine the concept of positioning, this paper has attempted toexamine the varying descriptions attributed to the conceptand as a result has clarified the concept by suggesting aworking definition of the concept (see Arnott, 1993). Inaddition, responding to the comments made by Yip (1997)that some of the positioning approaches in the literature areincomplete and therefore confusing and Ellis and Mosher’s(1993) suggestions for studies into the operationalization ofpositioning strategies, this research has tested a newlydeveloped consumer generated typology of positioningstrategies in the services industry. Furthermore, this studyanswers calls made by Porter (1985), Arnott and Easingwood(1994) and Rigger (1995) concerning the need forcomprehensive empirical research in the field of strategicpositioning in services industries. We believe that to somedegree, this research has reacted to Hooley et al.’s (2001)request for methods to assess brands’ competitive positionsand their implementation.

As for managerial implications, we postulate that thisresearch serves as an insight for marketing managers, brandmanagers and advertising executives who are involved withservice brands and specifically in the plastic card industry.This study has attempted to respond to claims made by Joharand Sirgy (1989) that the proliferation of positioning modelsnecessitates some attempt to guide marketing managers andmarketing researchers as to how and when to use whatpositioning strategies. It is suggested that in view of the

Table VI Summary of positioning strategies employed by servicebrands

Card brand

Overall positioning strategies employed, i.e.

overlapping, by executives/experts, marketing

communications and target group

Visa Reliability and the brand name

MasterCard The brand name

Amex Top of the range and the brand name

Diners Club Top of the range and service




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

442

challenging market environment, managers should proactivelyemphasise the positioning strategies that they presume theyare following in their marketing communications whileensuring that their efforts are consistent with perceptions oftheir target markets. This will curtail the ambiguity exhibitedin the target group’s perceptions (see Tables II-V). Formanagers and advertising executives, due to the absence ofguidelines and the resultant apprehension and difficultiesencountered in the application of the concept of positioning(Pollay, 1985; Piercy, 1991; de Chernatony, 1994; Piercy,2005), the present study provides them with descriptions ofthe basic “building blocks” (working definition, consumerderived typology and methodological approaches for assessingcongruence in positioning activities) and benchmarks (seeTables II-VI) needed for the employment of positioningstrategies.

Managers and advertising executives who manage offerings/brands in the middle class and mass markets may appreciateand adapt the findings put forward for Visa and MasterCard.On the other hand, those involved in the middle class andupper class markets should benchmark the strategies shown tobe pursued by Amex and Diners Club. They may employthese strategies within the context of creating a mental imagefor the target audience through implied and tangible benefitsof their service brands. More specifically, managers andadvertising executives may use the strategies in above-the-lineadvertising tactics (e.g. television, print, radio, billboards andinternet), below-the-line advertising tactics (pamphlets,leaflets, brochures, and point of sales) and public relationswithin the context of impacting target audiences’ perceptionsand buying behaviours. Thus managers may pursue thesestrategies in marketing communications that reflect in oneway or another the location, situations, castings, lighting,style, decor, tone and words and phrases used in eachcommercial on television and radio and print advertisementsor promotion (Rossiter and Percy, 1997; Fill, 1999).

Limitations and future research directions

Inevitably, this study suffers from some limitations in thatwhile this research’s results may be reflective of observation ofpositioning strategies in the UK service brand industry, it isfair to acknowledge that it is descriptive and reveals results,which must be considered as a preamble to a robust studyaimed at providing normative guidelines/approaches forservice marketers. Furthermore, while it is beyond the scopeof this study, it may be ideal to embark on a longitudinal studywith the aim of studying over time, the positioning strategiespursued by the card brands. Such data will provide richinformation about the positioning activities over time andsubsequently will enhance suggestions for normativeguidelines. We acknowledge the weaknesses in the selectionof the members of the Chartered Institute of Marketing torepresent the general public. This sample portrays a highlyeducated section of the general public and consequently maybe problematic for generalization. Notwithstanding, therationale for selecting this sample has been influenced bySpector’s (1992) and Oppenheim’s (1992) suggestions forusing consumers from literate background in complex attitudemeasurement studies.

Apart from the low response rate from survey of the generalpublic, another limitation of this research is the subjectiveanalysis from in-depth face-to-face interviews with executives/experts and the subsequent inductive reasoning that resulted

in the qualitative descriptions of executives’/experts’statements. We also acknowledge that this study deals withthe aggregate behaviours of a selected number of servicebrands and more specifically, the plastic card sector. Thus thefindings may be difficult for generalizations across all servicesbrands. However, it is important to mention that due to thevaried nature of services, the remit of this study has been tostudy positioning strategies/activities in a specific sector of theservices industry, i.e. the plastic card sector, which hasinternational and multicultural orientation. For futureresearch directions, it may be worth exploring theadaptation of the present study in the context of a casestudy. A logical extension of this research may be itsapplication in other industry sectors. In addition, in view ofthe international and multicultural underpinnings of the cardbrands, a replication and comparison in other countries iscalled for. The latter should be extended to compare two ormore culturally diverse Western settings such as UK, USA,and Canada and Eastern countries including China, Japanand Middle East and African economies (e.g. Kuwait, SaudiArabia, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria).

References

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999),“Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, NorthAmerica, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 75-87.

Arnott, D.C. (1992), “Bases of financial services positioningin the personal pension, life assurance and personal equityplan sectors”, PhD thesis, Manchester Business School,University of Manchester, UK.

Arnott, D.C. (1993), “Positioning: redefining the concept”,Research Papers No. 81, Warwick Business School,Coventry.

Arnott, D.C. (1994), “Positioning: on defining the concept,Marketing Educators’ Group (MEG)”, ConferenceProceedings, University of Ulster, Coleraine, NI, 4-6 July.

Arnott, D.C. and Easingwood, C.J. (1994), “Positioning inservices: an hypothetical typology of competitive bases”,23rd EMAC Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, University ofLimburg, Maastricht, 17-20 May, pp. 1-3.

Assael, H. (1985), Marketing Management, Kent Publishing,Belmont, CA.

Baker, M.J. (1981), “Services – salvation or servitude?”, TheQuarterly Review of Marketing, Spring, pp. 7-18.

Bateson, J. (1995), Managing Services Marketing, 3rd ed., TheDryden Press, London.

Berry, L.L. and Clark, T. (1986), “Four ways to makeservices more tangible”, Business, Vol. 36, October-December, pp. 53-4.

Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services:Competing through Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bitner, M.J. (1997), “Services marketing: perspectives onservice excellence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1,pp. 3-6.

Blankson, C. (2004), “Positioning strategies and incidence ofcongruence of two UK store card brands”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 315-28.

Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (1999), “Issues andchallenges in the positioning of service brands: a review”,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,pp. 106-18.

Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2001), “The development ofa consumer/customer-derived generic typology of




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

443

positioning strategies”, Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 35-53.

Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2004), “The developmentand validation of a scale measuring consumer/customer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies”, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2, pp. 5-43.

Buttle, F. (1986), “Unserviceable concepts in servicemarketing”, The Quarterly Review of Marketing, Spring,pp. 8-14.

Childers, T.L., Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1980), “Areassessment of the effects of appeals on response to mailsurveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVII, August,pp. 365-70.

Cochran, W.G. (1950), “The comparison of percentages onmatched samples”, Biometrika, Vol. 37, pp. 256-66.

Cutler, B.D. and Javalgi, R.G. (1993), “Analysis of print adfeatures: services versus products”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 62-9.

Dalebout, A. and Wierenga, B. (1997), “Qualitativemodelling of sales promotion decision making based onverbal data”, 26th EMAC Conference Proceedings, WarwickBusiness School, Coventry, 20-23 May.

Darley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1993), “Advertising claimobjectivity: antecedents and effects”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 57, October, pp. 100-13.

Day, E. (1992), “Conveying service quality throughadvertising”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 6, Fall,pp. 53-61.

de Chernatony, L. (1994), “Developing a more effectivebrand positioning”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 1No. 6, pp. 373-9.

de Chernatony, L. (1999), “The challenge of servicesbranding: knowledge management to the rescue”, TheJournal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 271-7.

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building onservices’ characteristics to develop successful servicesbrands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 Nos 7-8, pp. 645-69.

Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1991), “Targeting, segments andpositioning”, International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 4-10.

Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1997),Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 3rd ed., HoughtonMifflin, Boston, MA.

Donnelly, J.H., Brown, L.L. and Thompson, T.W. (1985),Marketing Financial Services, Irwin Professional Publishing,Burr Bridge, IL.

Easingwood, C.J. and Mahajan, V. (1989), “Positioning offinancial services for competitive strategy”, Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Vol. 6, September,pp. 207-19.

Ellis, B. and Mosher, J. (1993), “Six Ps for fourcharacteristics: a complete positioning strategy for theprofessional services firm – CPAs”, Journal of ProfessionalServices Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 129-45.

Fay, M. and Currier, G. (1994), “The rise and fall of the copypoint: the changing information content of printadvertisements from 1953-1988”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 10-31.

Fill, C. (1999), Marketing Communications: Contexts, Contentsand Strategies, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall Europe, HemelHempstead, pp. 511-22.

Fisher, R.J. (1991), “Durable differentiation strategies forservices”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 19-28.

Fletcher, A.D. and Bowers, T.A. (1991), Fundamentals ofAdvertising Research, 4th ed., Wadsworth Publishing,Belmont, CA.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1996), ResearchMethods in the Social Sciences, 5th ed., Arnold-HodderGroup, London.

George, W.R. and Berry, L.L. (1981), “Guidelines for theadvertising of services”, Business Horizons, Vol. 24, July-August, pp. 52-6.

Grove, S.J., Carlson, L. and Dorsch, M.J. (2002),“Addressing services intangibility through integratedmarketing communication: an exploratory study”, Journalof Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 393-411.

Hankinson, G. and Cowking, P. (1997), “Branding inpractice: the profile and role of brand managers in theUK”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 239-64.

Hawes, J.M., Crittender, V.J. and Crittender, W.F. (1987),“The effect of personalisation, source and offer on mailsurvey response rate and speed”, ABER, Vol. 18 No. 2,pp. 54-63.

Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences andHumanities, Addison-Wesley, London.

Hooley, G. and Greenley, G. (2005), “The resourceunderpinnings of competitive positions”, Journal ofStrategic Marketing, Vol. 13, June, pp. 93-116.

Hooley, G.J. and Saunders, J. (1993), Competitive Positioning:The Key to Market Success, Prentice-Hall, London.

Hooley, G.J., Greenley, G., Fahy, J. and Cadogan, J. (2001),“Market focused revenues, competitive positioning andfirm performance”, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 17 Nos 5-6, pp. 503-52.

Hornik, J. (1982), “Impact of pre-call request form andgender interaction on response to a mail survey”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. XIX, February, pp. 144-51.

Hsu, T.S. and Feldt, L.S. (1969), “The effect of limitationson the number of criterion scores on the significance level ofthe F-test”, American Educations Research Journal, Vol. 6,pp. 515-27.

Javalgi, R.G., Joseph, W.B. and Gombeski, W.R. (1995),“Positioning your service to target key buying influences:the case of referring physicians and hospitals”, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 42-52.

Jobber, D. (1989), “An examination of the effects ofquestionnaire factors on response to an industrial mailsurvey”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,Vol. 6, pp. 129-40.

Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1989), “Positioning models inmarketing: toward a normative-integrated model”, Journalof Business and Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 475-85.

(The) Journal of Marketing (1997), “Guidance for theAcceptance of Manuscripts”, The Journal of Marketing,Vol. 61 No. 1, p. 118.

Kalafatis, S.P., Glass, B. and Cooper, R.J. (1997),“Positioning strategies in the UK timber sector”, paperpresented at the IUFRO Conference, Tofino, BritishColumbia, Canada, June.

Kalafatis, S.P., Tsogas, M. and Blankson, C. (2000),“Positioning strategies in business markets”, Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 416-37.

Kara, A., Kaynak, E. and Kucukemiroglu, O. (1996),“Positioning of fast-food outlets in two regions of NorthAmerica: a comparative study using correspondenceanalysis”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 99-119.




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

444

Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity inQualitative Research, Qualitative Research Methods Series1, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Legg, D. and Baker, J. (1987), “Advertising strategies forservice firms”, in Suprenant, C. (Ed.), Add Value to yourService, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,pp. 163-8.

Leonard, M. and Spence, A. (1991), “The importance ofimage as a competitive strategy: an exploratory study incommercial banks”, International Journal of BankMarketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-9.

Levitt, T. (1981), “Marketing intangible products andproduct intangibles”, Harvard Business Review, May-June.

Lovelock, C.H. (1983), “Classifying services to gain strategicmarketing insights”, Journal of Marketing, Summer.

Middleton, V.T.C. (1983), “Product marketing – goods andservices compared”, The Quarterly Review of Marketing,Summer, pp. 1-10.

Mittal, B. (1999), “The advertising of services: meeting thechallenges of intangibility”, Journal of Services Research,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 98-116.

Mittal, B. (2002), “Services communications: from mindlesstangibilization to meaningful messages”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 424-31.

O’Cass, A. and Grace, D. (2004), “Exploring consumerexperiences with a service brand”, Journal of Product &Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 257-68.

Oppenheim, A.N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interview andAttitude Measurement, Pinter Publishers, London.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacLnnis, D.J. (1986),“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Piercy, N.F. (1991), Market-Led Strategic Change: MakingMarketing Happen in your Organisation, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Piercy, N.F. (2005), Market-Led Strategic Change: A Guide toTransforming the Process of going to Market, ElsevierButterworth Heinemann, London.

Pollay, R.W. (1985), “The subsidizing sizzle: a descriptivehistory of print advertising, 1900-1980”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard BusinessReview, November/December, pp. 61-78.

Rigger, W. (1995), Positioning in Theory and Practice: Towards aResearch Agenda, 24th EMAC Conference Proceedings, Vol.1,16-19 May, ESSEC, France, pp. 991-1009.

Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997), AdvertisingCommunications & Promotion Management, 2nd ed., TheMcGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, pp. 140-74.

Seggev, E. (1982), “Testing persuasion by strategicpositioning”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 37-42.

Shostack, G.L. (1987), “Service positioning throughstructural change”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, January,pp. 34-43.

Singhapakdi, A., Kraft, K.L., Vitell, S.J. and Rallapalli, K.C.(1995), “The perceived importance of ethics and socialresponsibility on organizational effectiveness, a survey ofmarketers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49-56.

Stafford, M.R. (1996), “Tangibility in services advertising: aninvestigation of verbal versus visual cues”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 13-26.

Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction,Sage University Papers, Sage Publications, London.

Walker, O.C., Boyd, H.W. and Larreche, J.C. (1996),Marketing Strategy: Planning and Implementation, Irwin,Chicago, IL, pp. 174-95.

Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed., SagePublications, Newbury Park, CA.

Winkler, R.L. (1981), “Combining probability distributionsfrom dependent information sources”, Management Science,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 479-88.

Worthington, S. (1990), The Future for Plastic Cards andPayment Systems in the UK, Institute of Retail Studies,University of Stirling, August.

Worthington, S. (1992), “Plastic cards and consumer credit”,International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 3-9.

Worthington, S. (1994), “Retailer aspirations in plastic cardsand payment systems”, Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-9.

Worthington, S. (1996), “Smart cards and retailers – whostands to benefit?”, International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 27-34.

Wyckham, R.G., Fitzroy, T. and Mandry, G.D. (1975),“Marketing services: an evaluation of the theory”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 59-67.

Yip, G.S. (1997), “Patterns and determinants of globalmarketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13 Nos1-3, pp. 153-64.

Young, M.R. (1993), “Positioning of financial institutionsusing adaptive perceptual mapping and computer-aidedinterviewing”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing,Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 159-71.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing,The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, pp. 286-95.

Further reading

Ray, M.L. (1992), Advertising and CommunicationManagement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.

Appendix 1. Notes on two sectors of plastic cardindustry. Credit cards. There are two major credit card schemes

operating in the UK; Visa and MasterCard. The two cardschemes are international and multicultural in orientationand are operated locally by individual banks and financialinstitutions. It is important to note that in order to ensureuniformity in responses, data for Visa and MasterCardreflect the sample of executives from banks and financialinstitutions involved in this study in addition to experts(see Appendix 3).

. Charge cards. These cards are often referred to as traveland entertainment cards (T and E Cards) and unlikecredit cards, essentially, do not provide any extendedcredit facility. Two main cards operate in the UK.American Express (Amex) and Diners Club are by natureof operation, international and multicultural. Unlikecredit cards, charge cards are sole card of thecompanies, i.e. do not operate under schemes.Responses emanate from four executives from each cardbrand and the remainder is made up of experts.

Adapted from Worthington (1990, 1992, 1994).




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

445

Appendix 2. Results of ANOVA tests on executives’ and experts’ presumptions, companies’communications, and target group’s perceptions of positioning strategies for Visa, Mastercard, Amexand Diners Club card brands

Table AII Positioning strategies identified from companies communications: Visa card

Copy points from mediaOther Print TVa Overall

Positioning strategies No. % No. % No. % No.

Top of the range 14 22 0 0 10 83 24Service 32 50 8 33 8 67 48Value for money 17 26 7 29 5 42 29Reliability 25 39 5 21 8 67 38Attractive 20 31 2 8 7 58 29Country of origin 8 12 1 4 0 0 9The brand name 29 45 15 62 10 83 54Selectivity 17 26 2 8 5 42 24Total number of ads examined 64 68 24 25 12 12 100

Results of ANOVA tests and identified positioning strategiesF-ratiodfsig.

10.55670.000

Service, Thebrand name

12.0707

0.000The brand name

4.5647

0.000Top of the range,The brand name,

Service,Reliability,Attractive

17.4067

0.000The brand name, Service

Notes: a Barclaycard Visa; Percentages have been rounded off; Other: Brochures, Pamphlets, and Out-door; Print: Newspaper

Table AI Executives’ and experts’ presumed positioning strategies (ANOVA): Visa card

Means for groups in homogeneous subsetsSubset for alpha 5 0.05

Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2 3

2.78 2.01 Country of origin £

3.76 1.80 Attractive £ £

3.81 1.88 Top of the range £ £

3.86 1.94 Selectivity £ £

5.07 1.42 Reliability £ £

5.15 1.65 Value for money £ £

5.18 1.65 Service £ £

6.05 0.83 The brand name £

Notes: £ indicates the results of the multiple comparison test groupings. This is implicit for the remaining card brands; F-ratio ¼ 15.130; df ¼ 7,296;sig. ¼ 0.000

Table AIII Target group’s perceptions of positioning strategies (ANOVA): Visa card

Means for groups in homogeneous subsetsSubsets for alpha 5 0.05

Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2 3 4 5


2.94 0.93 Top of the range £



3.77 1.29 Service £ £




Notes: F-ratio ¼ 45.517; df ¼ 7,701; sig. ¼ 0.000




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

446

Table AV Positioning strategies from companies’ communications: Mastercard

Copy points from media

Other Print TV Overall


Top of the range 5 17 0 0 1 10 6

Service 18 60 0 0 3 10 21

Value for money 10 33 0 0 0 0 10

Reliability 7 23 0 0 3 30 10

Attractive 14 47 0 0 6 60 20

Country of origin 12 40 0 0 2 20 14

The brand name 14 47 2 67 4 40 20

Selectivity 9 30 0 0 3 30 12

Total number of ads examined 30 77 3 8 10 23 43

Results of ANOVA tests and identified positioning strategiesF-ratio

df

sig.

5.367

7

0.000

Service, Attractive,

The brand name

The brand name 3.377

7

0.006

Attractive, The

brand name

6.032

7

0.000

Service, Attractive,

The brand name

Notes: Percentages have been rounded off; Other: Brochures, Pamphlets, Photos; Print: Newspaper

Table AIV Executives’ and experts’ presumed positioning strategies (ANOVA): Mastercard

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets

Subsets for alpha 5 0.05

Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2





4.53 1.45 Service £ £

4.89 1.61 Value for money £

5.00 1.38 Reliability £



Table AVI Target group’s perceptions of positioning strategies (ANOVA): Mastercard



Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2 3 4 5





3.84 1.05 Service £ £

4.14 0.76 The brand name £ £







Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

447

Table AVIII Positioning strategies identified from companies’ communications: Amex card




Top of the range 3 19 3 2 9 75 15

Service 5 31 103 76 6 50 114


Reliability 4 25 3 2 7 58 14

Attractive 1 6 3 2 5 42 9


The brand name 5 31 126 93 4 33 135

Selectivity 3 19 64 47 9 75 76



df

sig.

4.857

7

0.001

Service, The brand

name, Reliability,

Top of the range,

Selectivity

240.430

8

0.000

The brand name

7.601

70.000

Top of the range,

Selectivity,

Reliability, Service

171.510

8

0.000

The brand name


Table AIX Target group’s perceptions of positioning strategies (ANOVA): Amex card


Subset for alpha 5 0.05

Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2 3 4



3.85 0.98 Selectivity £


4.51 1.40 Service £ £


4.82 0.93 The Brand Name £ £



Table VII Executives’ and experts’ presumed positioning strategies (ANOVA): Amex card





3.31 2.02 Country of origin £ £

4.68 1.70 Selectivity £ £ £

4.78 1.68 Reliability £ £ £


5.89 0.80 Service £



Note: F-ratio ¼ 12.006; df ¼ 7,144; sig. ¼ 0.000




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

448

Table AXI Positioning strategies from companies communications: Diners Club Card




Top of the range 2 100 0 0 4 100 6

Service 2 100 0 0 1 25 3


Reliability 0 0 0 0 1 25 1

Attractive 1 50 0 0 3 75 4


The brand name 0 0 2 40 4 100 6

Selectivity 2 100 0 0 3 75 5



df

sig.

3.429

7

0.053

Top of the range,

Service,

Selectivity,

Attractive

The brand name 5.714

7

0.001

Top of the range,

The brand name,

Attractive,

Selectivity

7.143

7

0.000

Top of the range,

The brand name, Selectivity


Table AX Executives’ and experts’ presumed positioning strategies (ANOVA): Diners Club Card



Means SD Positioning strategies 1 2



3.00 1.54 Attractive £




4.18 1.90 Service £



Table AXII Target group’s perceptions of positioning strategies (ANOVA): Diners Club Card








3.94 1.44 Service £








Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

449

Appendix 3. List of organizations whoseexecutives were interviewed

1 Visa. Abbey National. Alliance & Leicester Group. Barclays Bank. Barclaycard. General Motors (Vauxhall). HSBC Bank. National Girobank. National Westminster Bank (Natwest). The Royal Bank of Scotland. The Bank of Scotland. Halifax Building Society. Robert Fleming (through Save & Prosper Group). TSB Bank. Ulster Bank. Visa International. Cooperative Bank Visa Centre. National & Provincial Building Society

2 MasterCard. Barclays Bank. Barclaycard. Clydesdale Bank. Lloyds Bank. HSBC Bank. Natwest. National Girobank. Robert Fleming (through Save & Prosper Group). The Royal Bank of Scotland. TSB Bank. Cooperative Bank plc

3 American Express (Amex)4 Diners Club

List of institutions whose experts were interviewed:. Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS).. Credit Card Research Group (CCRG).. Retail Credit Group (RCG).. British Bankers Association (BBA).. Barclaycard Group.. G.E. Capital.. Association of British Insurers.. Visa International.. Chartered Institute of Bankers.. Association of British Credit Unions Ltd.

. Credit Insurance Association.

. Credit Protection Association.

. Consumer Credit Trade Association.

. Consumer Credit Association.

. Banking Insurance & Finance Union.

. The Scottish Electronics Technology Group (SETG).

. Staffordshire University.

. University of Stirling.

About the authors

Charles Blankson (PhD, Kingston University, UK) is an

Assistant Professor of Marketing and Associate Director of

the New Product Development Scholars Program in the

Department of Marketing & Logistics at the College of

Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton,

Texas, USA. Charles has teaching experience in the UK at

Dunstable College, City University Business School,

Roehampton Institute and Kingston University among

others. More recently, he held tenure-track faculty positions

at Grand Valley State University and Long Island University,

C.W. Post Campus. His research interests include positioning

and brand management, services marketing, small business

marketing and international/multicultural marketing. He has

published articles in the Journal of Advertising Research,

Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of MarketingManagement, the Journal of Product & Brand Management, the

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, the Journal ofStrategic Marketing, the Service Industries Journal, and others.

Charles is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

[email protected] P. Kalafatis is Professor of Business Marketing at

Kingston Business School, Kingston University. He obtained

his doctorate form the University College of North Waleswhere he held a post before moving to Kingston University.

Although his research is located within the broad domain of

business marketing (specifically, channel design and

management, relationship marketing, information exchange,

organisational buying behaviour), segmentation, positioning

and value creation are also areas of interest. His work has

been published in a number of academic journals, including

Industrial Marketing Management, European Journal ofMarketing, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,

Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, InternationalJournal of Market Research, Journal of Advertising Researchand Journal of Marketing Management.




Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2007 · 435–450

450

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Positioning strategies of international service brands