Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · 2007 · Volume 35 · Issue 4

Abstract

This paper investigates how consumer norms regarding the use of marketplace comparisons can influence the effectiveness of positioning strategies. Using an experimental method and student samples, we provide evidence across a set of three studies that comparing a focal brand to an offering from the same product category (i.e., a within-category comparison) represents an expected marketplace tactic, while comparing a brand to a rival from a different category (i.e., a between-category comparison) constitutes a deviation from the norm. Studies one and two utilize an experimental design that manipulates comparison type to demonstrate the effect of norm violations on positioning outcomes. Consistent with the proposed theoretical framework, within-category comparisons were perceived as a more appropriate tactic and were thus more effective in positioning the focal brand than were between-category comparisons. Study three employs a two-factor experimental design to demonstrate the moderating effects of attribute claims. Specifically, the results from this study indicate that the general effect of comparison type established by studies one and two are contingent upon the size of the superiority being claimed in the comparison.

Keywords

Marketplace comparisons, Norms, Appropriate marketing tactics

Enable JavaScript for citation tools and additional paper interactions.