The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1464-6668.htm
IJSMS
19,4
450
Received 14 March 2017
Revised 1 September 2017
Accepted 14 January 2018
International Journal of Sports
Marketing and Sponsorship
Vol. 19 No. 4, 2018
pp. 450-471
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1464-6668
DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-03-2017-0018
Sports brand positioning
Positioning congruence and consumer
perceptions toward brands
J. Lucy Lee
School of Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure Studies,
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Yukyoum Kim
Seoul National University, Seoul, The Republic of Korea, and
June Won
School of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Policy,
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the location of sport brands in sport consumers’ minds
using a perceptual map of multiple positions; and examine whether there is congruence between the sport
brands’ purported images and the targeted consumers’ perception of the brands’ images.
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed method was used. Four steps of data collections (i.e. face-to-face,
focus group interviews, and questionnaires) and analyses (i.e. content analysis, MDS analysis, PROXSCAL
analysis, multiple regressions analysis, frequency analysis, and congruence score) were performed.
Findings – Four positioning typologies (i.e. great quality equipment, equipment for professionals, innovation, and
tradition) were identified; each brand’s positions in consumers’ minds were distinctly portrayed in the perceptual
map; and the congruence between intended and perceived positions was found in two brands – Titleist and Ping –
implying they established a high position-congruity and providing evidence of positioning effectiveness.
Practical implications – The findings will aid practitioners and scholars in positioning and its
effectiveness: the results provide information for managers to select, implement, and manage effective
positioning strategies and the study provides initial evidence about whether companies and their brands are
well-positioned in the sport consumer’s perception.
Originality/value – The authors attempt to examine how consumers perceive brands and how effectively
brand positions are portrayed in consumers’ minds. The effectiveness and competitiveness of positioning
strategies were examined via a perceptional map.
Keywords Sport brand management, Multidimensional scaling, Marketing communication effectiveness,
Positioning congruence, Positioning strategy
Paper type Research paper
Brand positioning is an attempt to create, change, or foster specific images about a brand in
the minds of consumers. Acknowledged for playing a vital role in overall brand
management and marketing success, brand positioning is a fundamental basis for
marketing activities and product strategies (Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2008; Park et al.,
1986; Wind, 1988). Successful positioning creates brand preference that influences a decision
to choose a specific brand over competitor brands (Aaker and Shansby, 1982; Pham and
Muthukrishnan, 2002). It also leads to a high level of brand equity and loyalty (Kalra and
Goodstein, 1998; Fuchs and Diamantopoulos, 2010). As a result, being well-positioned in the
market increases opportunities for financial success including market share, profits, and
revenues (Clement and Werner-Grotemeyer, 1990; Devlin et al., 1995; Fisher, 1991;
McAlexander et al., 1993; Porter, 1996). It is, thus, essential that brand managers and
executives periodically monitor and examine the extent to which their intended brand
positioning is successfully perceived in the desired location in consumers’ minds.
Brand positioning is often interchangeably used with brand image in the literature – both
involve the associations and perceptions toward particular brands; however, brand image
does not involve competition (Aaker and Shansby, 1982). Thus, simply identifying images of Sports brand
brands would not provide accurate brand positioning and its effectiveness. To examine brand positioning
positions in respect to competitors’ brand images, one method is via a positioning perceptual
map (Baines et al., 2014; Bijmolt and van de Velden, 2012). Despite its importance, only scant
research on the effectiveness of brand positioning via positioning perceptual maps has been
done (Najafizadeh et al., 2012; Uysal et al., 2000). Most prior researchers studied brand
positioning typologies and researched effectiveness from either companies’ (Easingwood and 451
Mahajan, 1989; Kalafatis et al., 2000) or consumers’ perspectives (Blankson and Kalafatis,
2001, 2004; Ferreira et al., 2008; Giroux et al., 2013). The former is classified as company-based
approach or termed “intended positions (IP)” and the latter is categorized as consumer-based
approach or termed “perceived positions (PP)” (see Fuchs and Diamantopoulos, 2012).
However, examining only the IP or PP would be problematic for researchers and practitioners
to evaluate the effectiveness of positioning. This is because the effectiveness of its marketing
communication activities cannot completely be assessed through consumer responses in
relation to what companies attempt to convey (Brooksbank, 1994; Dillon et al., 2001). Also,
many previous researchers claimed that consumers might possess different PP from
companies’ IP (Axelrod, 1973; Fuchs and Diamantopoulos, 2012; Halkias et al., 2017; Knoblich
and Flach, 2001) because of consumers’ prior schemas (e.g. values, beliefs, impressions,
thoughts, and feelings). If this is the case, researchers and practitioners cannot determine
whether brand positioning has been effectively portrayed as they intended. Thus, researchers
hold that examining positions from both company and consumer perceptions is necessary to
provide perspective and congruence to infer the effectiveness of positioning. From this
perspective, the findings of the current research provide two significant observations.
First, the results provide information for managers to select, implement, and manage
effective positioning strategies. As a perceptual map presents firms’ locations relative to
competitors’, sports brand managers can realize their current PP. If they are located in a
space congested with their competitors, they may modify their positioning strategies and
reposition themselves to be perceived as unique and differentiated in relation to competitors.
When consumers place a company or a brand in its own independent and unoccupied
location, it can reinforce its positioning strategies to maximize revenues. Previous research
supports evidence that poorly positioned brands may not lead to long-term profitability
(Devlin et al., 1995). Thus, visualizing the PP via the perceptual map in respect to
competitors informs how a firm needs to maintain, reinforce, or change its current position
to effectively manage its brand (Park et al., 1986). This would provide an opportunity to
examine its current location and to guide future direction.
Second, the results reveal what consumers perceive about the brand and determine
whether there is any similarity with the company’s IP on how it is perceived. That is, the study
provides evidence about whether companies and their brands are well-positioned in the sport
consumer’s perception. As position-congruity is an indicator to evaluate positioning
effectiveness, well-positioned brands will achieve competitiveness above other brands that
were poorly positioned. Blankson and Kalafatis (2004, 2007) researched financial service
companies to examine the position-congruity between company and consumers; however,
their results were not fully applicable to sport contexts. Brand positioning and congruence
have not been previously researched with a focus on sport branding. Thus, this study
provides useful information that positioning congruence can be one approach to define and
influence a sport brand’s positioning success.
Brand positioning plays a key role in brand management and overall marketing
strategy. Successful positioning in potential buyers’ minds may enjoy marketing
effectiveness and financial success; however, to date, very little research exists on
empirical studies of positioning in the sport context and the connection between the
congruence of intended and perceived positioning strategies and effectiveness as examined
IJSMS through relative- and competitive-perspectives vs a perceptual map. Therefore, the purposes
19,4 of the study are to:
• identify the location of sport brands in sport consumers’ minds using a perceptual
map of multiple positions, and
• examine whether there is congruence between the sport brands’ purported images
and the targeted consumers’ perception of the brands’ images.
452
Literature review
Brand positioning
Brand positioning is “the act of designing the company’s offering and image to occupy a
distinctive place in the mind of the target market”. The general premise of brand positioning
can be described as the process of integrating marketing communications to align target
consumers’ perceptions with brand identity and to provide psychological meaning to buyers.
Brand positioning has little to do with product innovation, but rather focuses on altering
consumer perceptions, so as to occupy an exclusive place (position) that differentiates the
firm’s brand from competitors. It is necessary to distinguish between market positioning
and brand positioning, as the concepts are often incorrectly used. It is also essential to
discriminate these two in terms of the aspects of brand positioning – intended positioning and
perceived positioning.

Strategic market positioning and brand positioning

DiMingo (1988) clarified the confusion regarding market and psychological positioning
(i.e. brand positioning); they mechanically work together. On the one hand, market
positioning is the process of establishing the firm as a leader in the marketplace through
its brand management activities. Market positioning requires marketers to present better
offers that satisfy their target consumers’ needs, wants, and demands (Evans et al., 1996;
Morgan et al., 2003). In other words, market positioning sets the direction for developing
brand positioning, which is employed via the firm’s marketing plan and market analysis.
It integrates marketing communications to create or alter desired brand perceptions of
target consumers (Ellson, 2009; DiMingo, 1988; Hooley et al., 2012). Brand positioning is
conceptually similar to brand image – the sum of a consumer’s perceptions about
a brand generated by the interaction of the cognitive, affective, and evaluative processes
(Lee et al., 2014). As both concepts share the notion of consumers’ perceptions and
associations toward brands, they seem comparable. However, Aaker and Shansby (1982)
addressed the clear difference between the two: The core element that differentiates
brand image and brand positioning is the competitive component. Brand image – an
explicit frame of reference – does not involve competition, whereas in brand positioning,
brand images are interpreted relative to competitors. Therefore, the well-defined
distinctions between the two similar concepts (i.e. market positioning and brand
positioning, or brand positioning and brand image) are necessary. The research on brand
positioning can be categorized into two broad approaches: company-based approaches
(i.e. intended positioning) and consumer-based approaches (i.e. perceived positioning).

Company-based approaches (intended positioning)

Company-based approaches involve surveying internal employees, including managers and
executives, on the positioning they implement, deliver, and execute. Intended positioning is
how a firm desires to be perceived by potential consumers in the target segments. This is related
to the images and attributes that a company intends to create about a brand. It is a “brand
identity” that a business designs to reflect the company’s core visions, missions, and objectives.
For example, the intended positioning of Titleist is to be recognized as the leader in golf Sports brand
equipment, the ball, in particular. Titleist primarily focuses on its golf ball to be perceived as the positioning
number one golf ball, the best-selling product on the market; it hopes to extend the leading
image of the ball that could apply to other product categories of the brand. It is important to first
acknowledge the intended positioning as the starting point for the company to reflect and
imprint their brand identities in consumers’ minds.
However, the approach possesses potential problems due to the inherent difference 453
between the positions companies attempt to plant in consumers’ minds (i.e. intended
position) and positions currently perceived by consumers (i.e. perceived position). Indeed,
previous researchers claimed the incongruence might exist because prior schemas influence
and form consumers’ new perceptions (Brown et al., 2006). The PP may differ from the IP
because each individual has various schemata and digests the IP in her or his own
meaningful and relevant way (Giroux et al., 2017). Consumers’ perceptions are formed via
firms’ various marketing communications efforts (i.e. actual positioning), thus, the firm’s
intended position may not directly be perceived by consumers as intended. Also, consumers
simply do not pay attention to and cannot know what the company’s IP are. Without
effective positioning strategies and their executions, consumers will not be able to
accurately perceive a company’s IP.

Consumer-based approaches (perceived positioning)

Perceived positioning includes consumer perceptions primarily measured by a consumer
survey. The PP are not limited to perceptions developed through actual positioning
strategies, but also through the consumers’ previous experiences or word-of-mouth. It is a
combination of perceptions including individual consumer values, beliefs, impressions,
thoughts, and feelings (i.e. previous schemata) regarding the brand (Ellson, 2009; Ries and
Trout, 1986). Based on the schema theory, the interpretation of the intended positioning and
the actual positioning may vary across consumers’ minds due to the set of personal
perceptions influenced by individual relevance and importance (Friedmann and Lessig,
1987). One of the major roles of marketers is delivering and communicating a relevant and
meaningful position in their target consumers’ minds, which, because of their prior schemas,
may or may not agree with the positioning claims that a firm creates. As Wind asserts,
successful positioning can be achieved by comparing organizational buyers’ or consumers’
perceptions to those of competitors (Lebrun et al., 2013; Myers, 1996; Sweeney and Soutar,
2001; Fuchs and Diamantopoulos, 2012).
To examine consumer PP in relation to competitors, the most popular method is through
the use of perceptual maps (i.e. positioning maps) using consumer surveys (Hauser and
Koppelman, 1979). The perceptual map can be derived from factor analysis,
multidimensional scaling (MDS), or discriminant analysis. The map aids practitioners
and researchers to visualize the place of brands in consumers’ minds in relation to
competitors on several positions. To measure accurate mental associations consumers
actually hold in relation to competitors, the measuring and comparing positions via the use
of the perceptional map is essential.

Congruence between IP and PP

To assess how effectively the company manages its brand positioning, it is necessary to
understand the meaning of “well-positioned.” Well-positioned companies have achieved a high
level of congruence between how they desire to be perceived by the consumers in target
segments (i.e. IP) and targeted consumers’ actual perceptions of the brands (i.e. PP). According
to schema congruity theory (Bartlett, 1932), each consumer is likely to perceive the firm’s IP in
his or her own meaningful way based on existing prior schemas. Thus, the degree to which a
company establishes position-congruity indicates its level of positioning effectiveness.
IJSMS The firms with a high level of position-congruity enjoy not only marketing and management
19,4 success but also financial gains (Brooksbank, 1994; Clement and Werner-Grotemeyer, 1990).
Previous researchers supported the fundamental role of brand position-congruity for a firm in
terms of financial returns in the long term (Richelieu and Pons, 2005). When positioning is
well-established and uniqueness is maximized, companies can expect higher returns and
profits (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Financial achievement cannot be assured if the
454 positioning is missing.
Not much literature provides evidence of the relationship between IP and PP (Blankson
and Kalafatis, 2004). Blankson et al. (2004) studied positioning congruence with service
brands. They identified that “the brand name” and “top of the range” among eight brand
positioning typologies were congruent between companies’ intended and consumers’
perceived positioning. They also researched the congruence in positioning among the media
brands (TV, newspaper, and other pamphlets) and found only 19 percent of the observations
match between IP and PP. Among eight typologies, only “brand name” positioning strategy
provided a position-congruity. To ensure more accurate and pertinent positions and their
congruence, it is worth investigating the congruence between intended and perceived
positioning and how congruence influences positioning success.

Research object: sport golf brands

To accurately measure positioning effectiveness, it is necessary to examine positions from
both managers and consumers and to search the research objects that can clearly portray
IP and PP. We selected golf equipment brands among sport brands for the following
reasons. In general, a competitive and stable industry has no more than three significant
competitors (Henderson, 1984). The industry finds equilibrium with three major
competitors in the market and usually follows a market-share ratio of approximately 4:2:1.
The first and second positioned brands take twice the market share compared to
the second and third positioned brands. Modified by Ries and Trout (1986), it became the
basis of the positioning rules. Interestingly, the Reeves et al.’s analysis confirmed that the
Henderson and Ries and Trout studies are still valid and accurately describe trends in a
wide range of industries and the market share structures current at the time. In the golf
market, a handful of brands dominates the market and exemplifies the rules of Positioning
(Ries and Trout). The market share within the sector in each equipment category was
followed by the positioning rules by 4:2:1. That is, the leading brand of the category
occupies more than a half of the market share and second and third brands occupy a half
of the first brands and another half of the second brands’ market share. For example, in
the Driver category, the market share of TaylorMade was 60 percent, Titleist 27 percent,
Callaway 11 percent, and others 12 percent. Also, in the Wedge category, Callaway’s
market share was 56 percent, Titleist 25 percent, TaylorMade 10 percent, and others
9 percent. Golf equipment product categories were rare examples of sport brands that
exactly followed the Ries and Trout’s positioning rules.
The second reason to select golf brands was derived from searching for the causes of
Nike Golf’s struggling in the golf industry. Despite the dominance of Nike in other sport
product categories (e.g. athletic shoes, apparel, etc.), the golf equipment categories
have been Nike’s unfamiliar territory. Regardless of the huge investment in sponsoring
top professional golfers, their profits and market shares have been recorded as one of the
bottom brands. Positioning may be the key to unlock Nike’s mystery (Uysal et al., 2000).
Two of the possible ways to examine the reasons in relation to the positioning rules
may be investigating their position-congruity and the single-positioning strategy. If there
is significant incongruence between IP and PP then Nike Golf may face economic and
financial difficulties. Since Nike Golf does not apply single-positioning strategy
(i.e. the strategy to introduce new brands rather than to change the positioning of
an existing brand), the image of other sport product categories may influence consumers’ Sports brand
perceptions. positioning
Last, golf equipment brands have to compete for decreasing consumers. According to
the National Golf Foundation, the population of golf consumers in the USA declined from
30 million in 2005 to 26 million in 2013. This has forced manufactures of golf equipment
to market more effectively. Examining their positions in the target consumers’ minds
and whether the positions are congruent with what the companies intend to deliver will 455
be a key because the congruence of brand positioning between companies and consumers
represents the effectiveness of marketing communication (Devlin et al., 1995;
Eryigit and Eryigit, 2014).
Thus, to advance the positioning literature and the effectiveness of positioning
influencing the practice, we think golf equipment brands precisely reflect the purpose of this
study and provide further meaningful insights. By using a perceptual map to visualize the
positions in consumers’ minds and matching the company’s IP, the positioning effectiveness
can be evaluated and provide implications to practitioners and researchers.
To measure the effectiveness of positioning, first, exploring IP and PP is fundamental and
next, analyzing congruence between them is necessary. Thus, we proposed the following
research questions using a positioning map and assuring congruence between them:
RQ1. How are the brands positioned in a perceptual map among competitors in the
market?
RQ2. Is there congruence between intended and perceived positioning among sport
brand firms and sport consumers?
RQ2a. What are the intended brand positions?
RQ2b. What are the perceived brand positions?

Method
We employ multiple methodologies (i.e. face-to-face interview, focus group interview,
questionnaire) to examine IP and PP and their congruence. Despite some resource
(e.g. time, money, expertise) constraints and difficulties in the review process, multiple
methodology research compensates for various weaknesses of single research methods and
provides more comprehensive, complete, convincing, and broader answers for research
questions (Davis et al., 2011). The lack of literature on congruence between intended and
perceived positioning and the effectiveness of brand positioning meant more exploratory
methodology was justified (Dougherty, 1992). In addition, the number of variables and
relationships between them justified a method that could capture such scope and complexity
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Six cases (i.e. golf brands) from the US golf industry were selected for the study.
We used theoretical sampling to determine the number of cases – that is, cases were
systematically added until no incremental learning was acquired (Sutton and Callahan,
1987). We contacted ten companies listed in “The 10 Best Brands on the PGA Tour” to
obtain the six studied. The current study also includes additional quantitative
evidence to supplement and clarify qualitative findings. Data were collected and
analyzed in four stages in relation to the research questions: Stage 1: Interviews with
executives and/or managers of brands to identify IP; Stage 2: a focus group interview
with sport consumers to explore PP; Stage 3: a questionnaire completed by additional
consumers to examine how the brands positioned in the consumers’ minds; and
Stage 4: whether there is congruence between IP and PP. A summary of research
methodology is in Table I.
IJSMS Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
19,4
Research RQ2a. What are the RQ2b. What are the RQ1. How are the RQ2. Is there
questions intended brand perceived brand brands positioned congruence between
positions? positions? in a perceptual map intended and perceived
among competitors positioning among
in the market? sport brand firms and
456 sport customers?
Keywords Intended positions Perceived positions Perceptual map Position-congruity
a
Participants 6 executives and 10 golf brand 71 golf consumers 71a golf consumers
marketing managers consumers (2+ years’ (2+ years’ experience (2+ years’ experience
of major golf experience) and consumption) and consumption)
equipment brands
Sampling Theoretical sampling Snowball sampling/ Purposive sampling Purposive sampling
procedures purposive sampling
Methods Face-to-face Focus group interview Questionnaire Questionnaire
interviews (semi- (semi-structured) (brand position
structured) similarity judgment)
Data Content analysis of Content analysis of Multidimensional Congruence score (Dk)
analysis interview transcripts interview transcripts, scaling (MDS) between intended
(namely Strauss, 1987)documents, and media analysis position and perceived
PROXSCAL analysis positions
Multiple regression
analysis
Reliability One-to-one interviews Small group Internal consistency Internal consistency
with standardized interviews with (Cronbach’s α: 0.972) (Cronbach’s α: 0.972)
questions standardized Tucker’s coefficient
Stepwise replication questions
Stepwise replication
Validity Triangulation Triangulation Content validity Content validity
Peer debriefing Peer debriefing
Member checking Member checking
Use of rich and thick Use of rich and thick
Table I. verbatim verbatim
Summary of Reflective journal Reflective journal
methodology Note: aThe sample of Stages 3 and 4 is the same

Participants and sampling procedures

In the first stage, each brand’s intended brand positioning was identified through
semi-structured interviews with six individual brands’ executives or managers at the 2014
Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) Merchandise Show in Orlando, Florida.
The primary purpose of the initial interviews was to identify intended positioning of
brands. The profiles of interviewees were as follows:
• participants: six brands’ managers/executives from across the nation met and
interviewed at the 2014 PGA Merchandise Show;
• sampling procedure: theoretical sampling;
• gender: male (66.6 percent), female (33.3 percent);
• age: 34-56; and
• job position: sales consultant at Bridgestone; director of communication at Callaway;
sales representative at Nike; account coordinator at Ping; global communication at
TaylorMade; key manager of communication at Titleist.
These interviews revealed several key positions/brand identities.
 In the second stage, a focus group interview was conducted with ten golf consumers Sports brand
(i.e. golfers) with various levels of handicaps and experiences. The interviewees were positioning
recruited by a snowball sampling technique due to a specific purpose of the study. We asked
the golf management department director and managers at the golf pro shops to recruit a
few golfers who have played golf and purchased golf products for at least two years.
The interviews were conducted in the local coffee shop, which the participants could easily
access. An icebreaking introduction to discuss the main question and PP of each brand took 457
approximately 50 minutes. For accurate communication, we distributed open-item
questionnaires to the golf consumers to offer their thoughts on each brand. The objective
was to identify perceived positioning. The profiles of ten consumers are as follows:
• participants: in 2014, ten golf consumers (two+ years’ experience and consumption)
at southern cities;
• sampling procedure: snowball sampling/purposive sampling;
• gender: male (90 percent), female (10 percent);
• age: 22-62; and
• occupation: salesperson (20 percent), manager of golf shop (20 percent), professional
golfer (10 percent), amateur golfer (40 percent), and teaching professional (10 percent).
We analyzed responses to test for congruence between intended and perceived positioning.
In the third and fourth stages, based on the common positions identified from both internal
personnel and golf consumers, perceptual maps were developed and position-congruity was
assessed with 71 research participants. The profiles of participants were as follows:
• participants: 71 golf consumers (two+ years’ experience and consumption) across
nation in 2014 and 2016 through online surveying;
• sampling procedure: purpose sampling;
• gender: male (92.6 percent), female (7.4 percent);
• Aage: 19-62 (19–30: 64.1 percent);
• ethnicity: white (72 percent);
• handicap: 0-21 or over (0-10: 82 percent);
• years of playing golf: 2-25 years (10-19 years: 53.8 percent); and
• frequency of purchasing golf equipment in the past two years: 2-100 or more
(10-50 times: 61.5 percent).

Measurements
In the first stage, the questionnaire and the interviews for the internal brand personnel
included the following items:
(1) Describe the prospective position(s) the brand has worked to establish in the minds
of consumers. In other words, what do you want consumers to think of when they
think of your brand?
(2) Describe the identity(ties) your brand has worked to establish. In other words, what
key characteristics or traits are promoted to reflect the brand?
In the second stage, a focus group of consumers responded to the following item:
(3) What comes to mind when you think of [BRAND X]? (e.g. Brand X includes
Bridgestone, Callaway, Nike, Ping, TaylorMade, and Titleist).
IJSMS In the third stage, the responses from the brand personnel and golf consumers were used to
19,4 identify common positions that represent a respective brand position. The participants rated
the overall brand image similarity of the pair of brands and how well each attribute
represented each brand using a seven-point Likert type scale. Common positions were
corresponded in the perceptual map and evaluated.
To measure position-congruity, we used the difference scores (Dk) between IP and PP.
458 We asked both internal employees and consumer interviewees to rate how strongly each
position represents the brands: 0 “not at all representative” to 6 “very representative.”
We computed the congruence (Dk) between IP and PP using the absolute difference scores
between the ratings of positions then averaged the scores across all positions for each
respondent. The position-congruity measure is as follows.
The position-congruity score (Dk):
Pn  

i;j¼1 I P ijk PP ijk
Dk ¼
n
where n number of positions (n ¼ 6), i position i (i ¼ 1, …, n), j brand j ( j ¼ 1, …, n), IPijk, the
ratings of IP along with position i for brand j for respondent k; PPikk, the ratings of PP along
with position i for brand j for respondent k.
The theoretically possible range is from 0 indicating perfect congruity to 5.5 representing
perfect incongruity between IP and PP. As the low congruence score means high
congruence between IP and PP, we rescaled the scores by subtracting the position-congruity
scores from a perfect incongruence score (i.e. 5.5) to avoid confusion. In this way, the greater
congruence score implies higher congruence between IP and PP. The congruence scores for
each brand were then regressed onto positioning effectiveness.

Data analysis
The study includes four main stages in data collections and analyses. Prior to each stage, the
validation was done through the following methods: first, all tools (i.e. questionnaires,
interview, and focus group discussion guide) were reviewed by sport management scholars
who taught at the university. Also, directors of golf at a major university and semi-private golf
clubs were consulted and a trial micro-level test of the measures of a few purposively selected
samples was piloted in order to ensure validity and reliability of methodology and
instrumentation. We used the prepared questions in the interviews (Conway et al., 1995),
which were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim using NVivo 9 software.
The following procedure was also elaborated to further strengthen the trustworthiness and
credibility of research findings (Healy and Perry, 2000; Johnson, 1997; Mathison, 1988). The third
author examined the transcripts to identify and classify emerging themes and positions.
The second author combined qualitative and quantitative responses and reviewed the
positioning themes in terms of IP and PP. A content analysis of the individual identities and
positions that we identified and combined was then conducted. Based on the data, we compared
and contrasted higher themes in intended and perceived brand positioning. Individual positions
were ascertained and positions were characterized based on common positions. We then
individually selected representative quotes that synthesized the most prevalent themes in the
data and developed potential higher order themes. The first author reviewed and coded the
quotations to further strengthen the dependability of the findings (see Tables II and III).
Once preliminary analysis from the respective data sets was conducted, we exchanged
analyses. Tentative themes, concepts, and possible relationships between intended and
perceived positioning were developed. To test how well the emerging themes and relationships
fit the case data, we systematically and iteratively compared the emergent frame with the
collected evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). Golf brands in terms of positioning strategies and
Brands Intended positions Brands Intended positions
Sports brand
positioning
Bridgestone Innovation Ping Premium quality
Premium quality Consistence
Ball fitting program Tradition
Equipment for all golfers
Callaway High performance TaylorMade Innovation
Premium equipment High performance 459
Innovation Passion
Accessibility/approachability Equipment for all golfers
Nike Best equipment Titleist High performance
Premium quality Innovation
Innovation Premium quality Table II.
#1 ball The intended
Tradition positions

congruence between IP and PP were paired and analyzed by similarities and dissimilarities
within each pair. From the pairwise comparison, we induced tentative relationships between
variables. We then went back to each case to see if the strategies and relationship were
confirmed and, if they were, to use the case to develop a better understanding of the underlying
dynamics. Our comparisons with the existing literature sharpened the understanding after
much iteration between data and propositions. What emerged were typologies linking brand
positioning and position-congruity.
A frequency analysis, PROXSCAL and multiple regression with IBM SPSS version 19 were
performed to consider each positioning application. To determine consumer perceptions of each
brand’s position, MDS analysis was used for the visual map. Unlike other statistical tools, the
MDS does not require strict adherence to a certain sample size for examination of assumptions.

Results
The first data analysis: identifying IP
The purpose of the first data collection and analysis was to identify IP that the organization
tries to reflect and imprint on a consumer’s mind. Six internal employees of brands were
interviewed. The following were key interview excerpts from the RQ2a “What are the
intended brand positions? In other words, what do you want consumers to think of when
they think of your brand?”
The following statement was from communication director of Callaway Golf:
First and foremost, we want consumers to view Callaway as a leader in total performance, premium
golf equipment. And as a marketing professional, we want them to think the Callaway brand is
unlike others in that it is both aspirational and accessible.
From this statement, we identified the IP of Callaway Golf as high performance, great
equipment, premium quality, accessibility, and approachability.
A sales representative of Nike Golf, also presented some essential positions that Nike
tries to imprint in consumers’ minds:
Nike simply highlights “One logo (Nike) with the best athletes.” […] Best product with the best
players in the world […] Leader of innovation and developing the best equipment.
These statements indicate that Nike Golf intends to position itself as great equipment,
premium quality, and innovation. Other statements emphasize exclusive points of view on IP.
Ping Golf mention that they try to send this message:
“Play your best!” and […] emphasize the oldest golf company (tradition) not the biggest company.
IJSMS Brands Positions (Frequency) 1st-order positions 2nd-order positions
19,4
Bridgestone Premium quality ball (9) Premium quality Great quality Equipment
Optimum (1) Equipment for all Equipment for
Equipment ( for Average and Above Players) (1) levels of players Professionals
Callaway Innovation (Tech, cutting-edge) (2) Innovation Innovation
Good fairway metals (1) Great equipment Tradition
460 Good drivers (1)
Distance (1)
High performance

Risk-taking (1)
Resilience (1)
Forgiveness (1)
Performance (1)
Premium quality (1)
Ineffectiveness (1)
Hit or miss performance (1)
Nike Good brand recognition (Overall sport Tradition
branding) (7) High performance
Athletic (1) Equipment for all
powerful (1) levels of players
Tour performance (1)
Equipment ( for beginners) (1)
Equipment ( for avid golfers) (1)
Ping Performance (5) High performance
Forgiveness/durable (2) Tradition
Tradition (classic) (4) Great equipment
Good putters (4)
Good irons (1)
Stylish (1)
Unique (1)
Hardy (1)
Premium quality (2)
Equipment ( for every level players) (2)
Innovation (1)
TaylorMade Good driver/Fairway Metals (4) Great equipment
Trendy (2) Premium quality
Popular (1) High performance
Premium quality (2) Innovation
Tour quality (1) Equipment for all
Performance (1) levels of players
Forgiveness (1)
Distance (1)
innovation (Tech) (3)
Quick Turnover of Product; Too many
lines→Mass product) (2)
Peoples (Equipment for every level golfers) (1)
Generic (1)
Titliest Premium quality (8) Premium quality
Tradition (Classic) (4) Tradition
Reputation (2) High performance
No. 1 ball (Most played, best-selling) (3) Equipment for all
Performance (3) levels of players
Table III. Peoples ( for above average players) (3)
Perceived positions Expensive cost (1)

These statements indicate that the two brands, Nike and Ping, concentrate on the
specific images/positions (e.g. Nike – the best athletes’ products and Ping – tradition) to
communicate the images/positions.
Through individual interviews with internal personnel of six golf brands, we identified
and classified the IP that the firms attempt to portray. The IP that six golf brand
organizations portrayed were innovation, premium quality, high performance, great Sports brand
equipment, tradition, consistency, equipment for all levels of golfers, the number one ball or positioning
ball fitting, passion, and accessibility/approachability. Table II summarizes each brand’s
intended position.

The second data analysis: identifying PP

The purpose of the second data collection and analysis was to identify PP that consumers 461
recognize and evaluate. The main question for them was “RQ2b. What are the perceived
brand positions? In other words, “what comes to mind when you think of [Brand X]?” Brand X
included Bridgestone, Callaway, Nike, Ping, TaylorMade, and Titleist. We asked interviewees
to freely suggest which brands they would like to discuss. The following are some researcher-
cited quotations obtained from interviewees.
An assistant manager of Edwin Watts Golf Shop:
When I think of Titleist, great products for the average to better player and poor consumer service
come to mind. But Ping, they are great company and great products for all levels of players […]
Callaway? I think Callaway has a hard time keeping up with the others companies […] Isn’t Nike a
marketing company? I never thought Nike is a golf company. Not a specific brand image comes to
mind in case of Bridgestone but they have great golf balls and okay clubs […] TaylorMade makes a
good club for the majority of players.
In this quotation, we recognized some positive images such as great products (Ping;
TaylorMade; Titleist), and equipment for all levels (Ping; TaylorMade) and some negative
perceptions of Nike and Callaway such as not innovative (Callaway) and irrelevant golf
reputation (Nike).
A student of PGA Golf Management department at a southern university, mentioned few
images:
Titleist has very exclusive brand images. When I think of Titleist, it seems like the equipment is only
for above average golfers. I always think their equipment is targeting Tour performance […]
Callaway and TaylorMade clubs seem to emphasize on distance (high performance). In their
advertising, they always mention “more distance.” TaylorMade, they seem to focus mainly on clubs,
not balls. They have mass products. They have too many product lines and a quick turnover of
products […] Bridgestone, they are for average and above average players. Ping is for putters but
other clubs provide Tour performance and style. And tradition! Nike? Nike is a big advertising
company. They are for avid golfers, I guess.
From the quotes and a composite of other interviewees’ statements, among several positions
mentioned, we identified key positions such as premium quality ball (Bridgestone), great
equipment (Ping; TaylorMade; Titleist), tradition (Ping), and innovation (TaylorMade;
Callaway). We identified several positions and images that golf consumers perceive
(see Table III).
The multiple images were classified and grouped into higher order themed positions.
First, distance, risk-taking, resilience, forgiveness, athletic, powerful, and durable were
grouped under “high performance.” “Premium quality” included tour quality, trendy,
popular, and colorful. “Great equipment” included good fairway metals, good drivers, good
putters, good irons, stylish, unique, hardy, and No. 1 ball (most played, best-selling).
Equipment for different levels was classified as “Equipment for professionals” to clarify the
distinction among various levels. “Tradition” contained classic, prestige, and reputation.
“Innovation” included cutting-edge technology and mass product lines. Thus, high
performance, premium quality, great equipment, equipment for professionals, tradition, and
innovation were categorized as first-order themed positions.
Next, the first-order themed positions were reclassified into second-order themed
positions, as some concepts were not clearly distinguishable. Great equipment, high
IJSMS performance, and premium quality shared the notion of great quality equipment; therefore,
19,4 we decided to group and title it as great quality equipment. As a result, the second-order
themed positions included great quality equipment, tradition, innovation, and equipment for
professionals. Interestingly, among the six brands, Bridgestone was uniquely perceived in
terms of ball fitting program. Table III provides a summary of PP by each brand and the
first- and second-order themed positions.
462
The third data analysis: visualizing consumers’ perceptions toward brands
The third data collection and analysis quantitatively represent how golf consumers
perceived the brands: 71 consumer ratings on multiple positions were included in the data
analysis, which were calculated with PROXSCAL and multiple regression with IBM SPSS
version 19. The reliability estimate from the Cronbach’s α was 0.972, indicating the items’
high internal consistency. Additionally, each variable accounts for 38-79 percent of the total
variance. Unlike other statistical tools, the MDS does not require strict adherence to a certain
sample size for examination of assumptions.
First, to identify appropriate dimensionality on (dis)similarity judgment among
brands, the data for overall brand image similarity were analyzed by using PROXSCAL
program. A scree plot showed that increasing the dimensionality from 1 to 2 and from 2 to
3 offers large improvements in the stress. A choice must be made between two- or three-
dimensional solutions. We decided to analyze data by using a two-dimensional solution
because not only are the results easier to interpret but also Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence measure fit increased from 0.88 (three dimensions) to 0.97 (two dimensions),
which indicated a better solution.
Second, the proximity (i.e. (dis)similarity in the study) among brands was examined.
Each brand was located in a unique position and no brand overlapped another. That is,
each brand has unique images. Figure 1 contains the overall brand image similarity
judgment of golf consumers. Among the six brands, two brands – Callaway and
TaylorMade – were located in the closest Euclidean distance (i.e. 0.26) whereas other two
brand sets – Nike and Bridgestone (i.e. 1.60), and Ping and Bridgestone (i.e. 1.67) – were
distinctively distant from one another.
To correspond each position with the derived perceptual map, we used multiple
regression analysis using coordinates index from the PROXSCAL outcomes. Another data

0.8

Nike

Callaway
Coordinates index I

Bridgestone
TaylorMade

0
–1.2 0 1.2

Ping
Figure 1. Titleist
A perceptual map on
overall brand image
similarity –0.8
Coordinates index II
analysis was performed based on positions’ representativeness judgments. Research Sports brand
participants rated four positions (i.e. great quality equipment, tradition, equipment for positioning
professionals, innovation) extracted from the second data analysis between 0 “not at all
representative” and 6 “very representative.” Using coordinates index as the first and second
independent variables in the regression analysis and each attribute as a dependent variable,
β (i.e. standardized coefficients) was calculated. The values from six regression analyses
were presented on top of “A perceptual map on overall brand image similarity.” Among four 463
positions, tradition (R2 ¼ 0.79) and great quality equipment (R2 ¼ 0.76) were the most
significant. The two positions explained approximately 80 percent of variance on each
brand. Table IV contains the results.
All four positions’ vectors based on the standardized coefficients and located near two
brands, Ping and Titleist. That is, two brands were strongly associated with such images
compared to other four brands. Other two brands – Nike and Bridgestone – were located
most distant from all four positions indicating consumers were less likely to associate such
images with two brands. Figure 2 presents positions of brands in terms of four main
positioning typologies.

Coordinates
Brands I II
Bridgestone 0.984 0.114
Callaway 0.099 0.263
Nike −0.579 0.501
Ping −0.451 −0.497
TaylorMade −0.142 0.166
Titleist 0.088 −0.546
Positions Standardized coefficients R2
Tradition −0.063 −0.889 0.794 Table IV.
Great quality equipment 0.085 −0.886 0.762 The result
Equipment for Professionals −0.405 −0.617 0.545 summary of position
Cutting-edge Innovation −0.258 −0.317 0.167 rating judgment

Nike

Callaway
Coordinates index I

TaylorMade
Bridgestone
0
–1.2 0 1.2

Innovation
Ping
Titleist

Equipment for
Figure 2.
professionals
Great quality A perceptual map
Tradition equipment on position
–1 representativeness
Coordinates index II
IJSMS The fourth data analysis: congruence between intended and PP
19,4 Results from intended and perceived positioning among sport brand firms and sport
consumers provided answers for the second research question , RQ2. Is there congruence
between intended and perceived positioning among sport brand firms and sport
consumers? We used the difference scores between IP and PP to measure position-
congruity. The congruence scores (Dk), a deviation between IP and PP, were computed; 0
464 implied perfect congruity to 5.5 represented perfect incongruity between IP and PP.
The results show the position-congruity scores range from 3.79 (Nike) to 5.43
(TaylorMade). TaylorMade Golf (5.43) and Ping Golf (5.42) have a high level of
congruence between IP and PP followed by Titleist Golf (4.49), Callaway Golf (4.22), and
Bridgestone Golf (3.97). Nike Golf has the lowest as 3.79 (R2 ¼ 0.88, p o 0.05). Based on the
frequency analysis of outcomes from internal personnel and consumers’ interviews, the
position-congruity was from 0 to 75 percent. Titleist Golf (75 percent) has a high level of
congruence between IP and PP followed by TaylorMade Golf (66 percent), Ping (60
percent), and Callaway (57 percent). Nike Golf has no congruence between IP and PP
whereas Bridgestone has a half correspondence (50 percent). The frequency analysis and
congruence scores were not much different as the top three brands – Ping, TaylorMade,
and Titleist – rank high congruence and the bottom three brands – Bridgestone,
Callaway, and Nike – as low congruence. Table V presents a summary of congruence
between IP and PP and data analysis.

Discussion
Theoretical implications
Despite of the importance of evaluating position effectiveness by comparing IP and PP, a lack
of studies exists on position-congruity. This limits the discussion based on our findings. Few
studies (Blankson and Kalafatis, 2007; Crawford, 1985; Fuchs and Diamantopoulos, 2010)
provide positioning typologies and identify which typologies match between companies and
consumers. Blankson and Kalafatis (2007) examined positions that financial service brands
employed to learn whether any position significantly influenced perceptions. They claimed that
two positions – Brand name and top of the range – were coherent among internal personnel
and consumers. Blackson et al. also reported only brand name was consistent among
consumers and managers in the media. In the current study, two main positions – tradition
and great quality equipment – as well as two minor positions – equipment for all levels and
innovation – were recognized through multiple in-depth interviews. There are two reasons for
the positions being inconsistent with the previous literature.
First, the characteristics of research objects were different. Financial service brands are
more likely service-oriented whereas golf brands are more likely perceived as goods.
The experience and inference with physical equipment was fundamentally the basis
for inferring the images of the brands. The images are likely derived from the physical
sporting goods used through experience or advertisements. If the research objects are
service-oriented such as sports teams or sporting events, the results may provide coherent
outcomes. However, in the current study, the characteristics of the products influence the
perception of brands and this may explain the inconsistent results.
Second, while grouping every single image or position into multiple higher order
themed positions, the basic criteria were not sufficient. The previous literature does not
satisfactorily provide the criteria or standards to classify positions into higher order
themes. Also, the research objects were slightly different from previous research objects.
For this reason, subjective judgments were applied with the expertise review process. The
different grouping process on hierarchical order themes, thus also results in incoherent
outcomes compared to previous results. However, the results and implications from the
current study should not be limited to the golf industry and sport consumers. By applying
 Sports brand
Congruence (%) Congruence Rescaled
Firm Intended positions Perceived positions (Frequency) Score (Dk)a Dbk positioning
Bridgestone Premium quality Premium quality 50 (2/4) 1.53 3.97
Ball Fitting Equipment for all golfers
Program
Callaway High performance High performance 54 (4/7) 1.28 4.22
Premium quality Great equipment 465
Innovation Innovation
Accessibility/
approachability
Nike Great equipment Tradition 0 (0/6) 1.71 3.79
Premium quality High performance
Innovation Equipment for all golfers
Ping Premium quality Premium quality 60 (6/10) 0.08 5.42
Tradition Tradition
Equipment for Equipment for all golfers
all golfers High performance
Consistence Great equipment
Innovation
TaylorMade Innovation Innovation 66 (6/9) 0.07 5.43
High performance High performance
Equipment for Equipment for all golfers
all golfers great equipment
passion Premium quality
Titleist High performance High performance 75 (6/8) 0.56 4.94
Premium quality premium Quality
Tradition tradition
Innovation
#1 Ball
Regression Constant −0.23 R2 0.88
analysis results Position-congruity 0.06* Adjusted R2 0.85
No. of observations 71 Table V.
Notes: aA deviation between intended and perceived positions; ba score subtracting a congruence score from Congruence between
5.5 (perfect incongruence). The high scores denoting higher congruence between intended and perceived intended and
positions. *Indicates significance at the 95 percent level perceived positions

the proximal similarity model (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008) for external validity, the
basic premise – congruence between IP and PP is highly related to positioning
effectiveness and leads to financial success – can be generalized to similar contexts, times,
and places. For example, we could explain Nike Golf’s struggle (e.g. a low level of position-
congruity), despite NIKE being a top brand in other product categories including shoes,
apparel, and other gear equipment. Sport franchises with congruent positions from
managerial and consumers’ perspectives would achieve higher financial performance
than those who did not establish position-congruity. Thus, the concept can be applied in
general business contexts.
One significant finding of the current study is that it provides initial evidence of
positioning effectiveness through congruence between IP and PP via perceptual maps.
Previous researchers theoretically proposed positioning congruence and its effectiveness
(Eryigit and Eryigit, 2014; McAlexander et al., 1993; Porter, 1996). In the current study, the
competitive advantage achieved by a strongly established positioning in relation to
effectiveness and positioning congruence scores was first examined. However, additional
evidence of the longitudinal comparisons may be necessary as the positioning strategy
and effectiveness are long-term goals and should be established for continuing progress.
IJSMS The result of the study broadens the literature by providing evidence of distinguishing and
19,4 differentiating their brands as successfully positioned brands enjoy the competitive
advantage over the long term.

Managerial implications
Through the examination of IP position, one major issue was identified: no consistent and
466 coherent messages were delivered. The terms used by internal personnel and slogans or
phrases delivered through marketing communications were not used/identified by
consumers. Except for one brand (i.e. Bridgestone Golf ), which focused on “the
customized product program,” the other brands do not effectively maintain their IP along
with the marketing communications. Their communication strategies or tactics were not
unique, nor were they less likely to deliver their IP through actual positions. This eventually
results in the various perceptual positions portrayed by consumers. In order to take
advantage of the unique IP, firms require not only setting IP but also delivering identical
and consistent positions. Consumers may perceive various positions because of incoherent
messages and vague images (i.e. incoherent actual positioning). Thus, to effectively deliver
IP, identical terms/words should be used through actual positioning to successfully
penetrate the consumer’s mind. Consistent and coherent message delivering will be essential
for the sport brands.
Companies must transform their brands into unique and positive images.
Consumers will more likely select the brand that is first rung in their product ladder
(Ries and Trout, 1986). If consumers do not significantly distinguish the two or more
brands (i.e. located in the congested area in prospects’ minds), that implies the brands are
not on the first rung of the product ladder; therefore, they are less likely to be chosen by
consumers because of the position confusion. By exploring and monitoring the current
positions of the consumers and identifying unoccupied locations in their minds via visual
maps, practitioners may distinguish their brands, reach the brand located, and become the
first rung of a new product category. For example, in the current study, brands
TaylorMade and Callaway were closely located in consumers’ minds. These two brands
need to create distinct positions and images as consumers confuse one another. Also, since
the tradition and great quality equipment positions were highly associated with brands
Ping and Titleist, brands TaylorMade and Callaway need to strengthen other images such
as innovation or equipment for a certain level of players, who were not strongly associated
with brands Ping and Titleist. Altering the location in the consumer’s mind by
emphasizing these two positions may be effective for brands that are similarly perceived
by consumers.
On the one hand, if brands are uniquely located as a firm intended in the consumers’
minds, practitioners need to enhance and reinforce the current positions. Avoiding
marketing myopia such as introducing new positions or positions overlapped with other
competitors would ruin their existing positions. The confusing image congestions that do
not differentiate the brand should be avoided by emphasizing their strongly established
position. For instance, in the present study, two brands, Titleist and Ping, are distinctively
located and perceived by two main positions in consumers’ minds. More specifically, Titleist
is likely related to the “great quality equipment” whereas Ping is more likely to be related to
the “tradition.” Thus, the companies who have unique and strong positions that are
effectively perceived by consumers should concentrate on and maintain their particular
positions (e.g. Titleist “great quality equipment” and Ping “tradition”) and they will achieve
their desired outcomes in a long run.
On the other hand, if brands were perceived unfavorably, even worst, if no positions
were associated with brands, they need to create or reposition themselves. The one image
that consumers can associate will considerably influence the future financial productivity.
Depending on the locations of the brands, various different approaches and strategies Sports brand
should be introduced and implemented. In the study, for example, the perceptional map positioning
provides evidence that these two brands, Nike and Bridgestone, have relatively low image
congruence between IP and PP and have no distinctive positions associated with their
brands. Thus, these companies need to examine consumers’ current perceptions and adopt
distinctive positions to locate. Unlike brands located in the congested space, if brands (e.g.
Nike and Bridgestone) are located farthest in consumer minds, they would not need to 467
differentiate themselves from other competitors. Indeed, they need to choose the favorable
position they desire to be perceived. Thus, identifying brand positions in a perceptual map
aids brand managers and marketers to execute effective marketing communications.

Limitations and future research directions

One limitation of the current study is that its small sample size and exclusive data collection
in terms of geographical locations might jeopardize generalization of the results. Although
the MDS does not require strict adherence to a certain sample size for examination of
assumptions and the other two data collections were gathered across the nation through
online surveying and interviewing managers and executives of each brand, the second data
collection (i.e. focus group interview) was exclusively from the sample at Southern Cities.
Thus, the interpretation outside these six golf brands should be purposefully applied to
similar businesses, places, and times (Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Also, the study was the
initial attempt to represent the relationship between positioning effectiveness and position
congruence. As the positioning strategy is more likely to be a long-term goal, longitudinal
data, and comparisons of the relationship between financial performance and positioning
effectiveness may be necessary. To be supportive evidence, building validity is necessary
through multiple examination of the relationship between two.
Therefore, for future research to build validity and be comparable to the relationship
between positioning and financial returns, additional studies with more data from
representative samples from all across the country would be beneficial. Brands of
professional sports in particular will be essential because the revenue gaps are growing
among professional franchises, which can be explained by brand positioning strategy.
The perception toward brands and the positioning study provide practical and theoretical
implications that the previous literature could not provide. The importance of brand
management begins with differentiating the brand from other competitors, and positioning
(or repositioning) is the key marketing activity of practitioners. Appreciating the current
status by examining brand positioning will further benefit firm’s future growth and
marketing communication effectiveness.

References
Aaker, D. and Shansby, J. (1982), “Positioning your product”, Business Horizons, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 56-62.
Axelrod, R. (1973), “Schema theory: an information processing model of perception and cognition”,
American Political Science Review, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1248-1266.
Bartlett, F. (1932), Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study, 1st ed., Cambridge University,
Cambridge.
Bijmolt, T. and van de Velden, M. (2012), “Multiattribute perceptual mapping with idiosyncratic brand
and attribute sets”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 585-601.
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S. (2001), “The development of a consumer/customer-derived generic
typology of positioning strategies”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 35-53.
IJSMS Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S. (2004), “The development and validation of a scale measuring consumer/
19,4 customer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-43.
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S. (2007), “Positioning strategies of international and multicultural‐oriented
service brands”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 435-450.
Brooksbank, R. (1994), “The anatomy of marketing positioning strategy”, Marketing Intelligence &
468 Planning, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 10-14.
Brown, T.S., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2006), “Identity, intended image, construed
image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Clement, M. and Werner-Grotemeyer, H. (1990), “The iterative positioning process: an internal
approach from the pharmaceutical industry”, Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 18, June,
pp. 85-96.
Conway, J., Jako, R. and Goodman, D. (1995), “A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency
reliability of selection interviews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 565-579.
Crawford, C. (1985), “A new positioning typology”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 243-253.
Crawford, C. and Di Benedetto, C. (2008), New Products Management, 1st ed., Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, New York, NY.
Davis, D.F., Golicic, S.L. and Boerstler, C.N. (2011), “Benefits and challenges of conducting multiple
methods research in marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 467-479.
Devlin, J., Ennew, C. and Mirza, M. (1995), “Organizational positioning in retail financial services”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11 Nos 1/3, pp. 119-132.
Dillon, W., Madden, T., Kirmani, A. and Mukherjee, S. (2001), “Understanding what’s in a brand rating:
a model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 415-429.
DiMingo, E. (1988), “The fine art of positioning”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 34-38.
Dougherty, D. (1992), “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms”,
Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 179-202.
Easingwood, C. and Mahajan, V. (1989), “Positioning of financial services for competitive advantage”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Ellson, T. (2009), “Assessing contribution of research in business to practice”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1160-1164.
Eryigit, C. and Eryigit, M. (2014), “Understanding the effectiveness of positioning bases with regard to
customer perceptions”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 85-93.
Evans, M., Moutinho, L. and Raaij, W. (1996), Applied Consumer Behavior, 1st ed., Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Wokingham.
Ferreira, M., Hall, T.K. and Bennett, G. (2008), “Exploring brand positioning in a sponsorship context: a
correspondence analysis of the Dew Action Sports Tour”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 734-761.
Fisher, R. (1991), “Durable differentiation strategies for services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Friedmann, R. and Lessig, V. (1987), “Psychological meaning of products and product positioning”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 265-273.
Fuchs, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2010), “Evaluating the effectiveness of brand‐positioning strategies
from a consumer perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 11/12, pp. 1763-1786.
Fuchs, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2012), “Customer-perceived positioning effectiveness: Sports brand
conceptualization, operationalization, and implications for new product managers”, Journal of positioning
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 229-244.
Giroux, M., Pons, F. and Maltese, L. (2017), “The role of perceived brand personality in promotion
effectiveness and brand equity development of professional sports teams”, International Journal
of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 180-195.
Giroux, M., Pons, F. and Richelieu, A. (2013), “Internationalization of sports teams brands: 469
the consumers’ perspective”, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Halkias, G., Micevski, M., Diamantopoulos, A. and Milchram, C. (2017), “Exploring the effectiveness of
foreign brand communication: consumer culture ad imagery and brand schema incongruity”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 80, pp. 210-217.
Hauser, J. and Koppelman, F. (1979), “Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: relative accuracy
and usefulness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 495-506.
Healy, M. and Perry, C. (2000), “Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative
research within the realism paradigm”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 118-126.
Henderson, B.D. (1984), The Logic of Business Strategy, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA.
Hooley, G., Piercy, N.F. and Nicoulaud, B. (2012), Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning,
Prentice Hall/Financial Times, Hemel Hemsptead.
Johnson, R. (1997), “Examining the validity structure of qualitative research”, Education, Vol. 118 No. 2,
pp. 282-292.
Kalafatis, S., Tsogas, M. and Blankson, C. (2000), “Positioning strategies in business markets”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 416-437.
Kalra, A. and Goodstein, R. (1998), “The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer price
sensitivity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 210-224.
Knoblich, G. and Flach, R. (2001), “Predicting the effects of actions: interactions of perception and
action”, Psychological Science, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 467-472.
Lebrun, A.M., Souchet, L. and Bouchet, P. (2013), “Social representations and brand positioning in the
sporting goods market”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 358-379.
Lee, J.L., James, J. and Kim, Y. (2014), “A reconceptualization of brand image”, International Journal of
Business Administration, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
McAlexander, J., Becker, B. and Kaldenberg, D. (1993), “Positioning health care services:
Yellow Pages advertising and dental practice performance”, Journal of Health Care Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 54-57.
Mathison, S. (1988), “Why triangulate?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 13-17.
Morgan, R., Strong, C. and McGuinness, T. (2003), “Product‐market positioning and prospector
strategy”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1409-1439.
Myers, J. (1996), Segmentation and Positioning for Strategic Marketing Decisions, 1st ed., American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Najafizadeh, N.S., Elahi, M., Moemeni, A. and Lotfi, Z. (2012), “A model for brand positioning of
hygienic products using the most effective factors on competitive position and perceptual map
technique”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 27, pp. 8102-8117.
Park, C., Jaworski, B. and Maclnnis, D. (1986), “Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Pham, M. and Muthukrishnan, A. (2002), “Search and alignment in judgment revision: implications for
brand positioning”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 18-30.
Porter, M. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 61-78.
IJSMS Richelieu, A. and Pons, F. (2005), “Reconciling managers’ strategic vision with fans’ expectations”,
19,4 International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 6-19.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Sutton, R. and Callahan, A. (1987), “The stigma of bankruptcy: spoiled organizational image and its
470 management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 405-436.
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Trochim, W. and Donnelly, J. (2008), Research Methods Knowledge Base, 1st ed., Atomic Dog/Cengage
Learning, Mason, OH.
Uysal, M., Chen, J. and Williams, D. (2000), “Increasing state market share through a regional
positioning”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 89-96.
Watkins, B.A. and Gonzenbach, W.J. (2013), “Assessing university brand personality through logos: an
analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding”, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15-33.
Wind, Y. (1988), “Positioning analysis and strategy”, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
Marketing Department, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 387-412.

Further reading
Alberstadt, B. (2017), “Ranking the 10 best brands on the PGA Tour”, bleacher report, Atlanta, GA,
available at: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2283728-ranking-the-10-best-brands-on-the-pga-
tour (accessed February 23, 2017).
Baines, P., Crawford, I., O’Shaughnessy, N., Worcester, R. and Mortimore, R. (2013), “Positioning in
political marketing: how semiotic analysis adds value to traditional survey approaches”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 172-200.
Dillon, W., Domzal, T. and Madden, T. (2017), “Evaluating alternative product-positioning strategies”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 29-35.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1999), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, 1st ed., Aldine Transaction,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Keller, K. (2003), “Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. and Koshy, A. (2007), Marketing Management, 1st ed., Prentice Hall of India,
New Delhi.
Krishnan, H. (1996), “Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity
perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Lilien, G. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), New Product and Brand Management, 1st ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Reeves, M., Deimler, M., Stalk, G. Jr and Scognamiglio Pasini, F.L. (2013), “The rule of three and four:
a BCG Classic revisited”, in Deimler, M., Lesser, R., Rhodes, D. and Sinha, J. (Eds), Own the Future:
50 Ways to Win from the Boston Consulting Group, The Boston Consulting Group, New York, NY,
pp. 215-219.
Richelieu, A. and Pons, F. (2008), “If brand equity matters, where is the brand strategy? A look at
Canadian hockey teams in the NHL”, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 162-182.
Richelieu, A. and Webb, A. (2017), “Innovations in Major League Baseball catalyzing factors: when
winning is not enough”, International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 220-236.
Schiffman, L. and Kanuk, L. (2000), Consumer Behavior, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Schwandt, T. (2015), SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 1st ed., SAGE Publications, Sports brand
Thousand Oaks, CA. positioning
Secure.ngf.org (2017), “National Golf Foundation – publication catalog”, available at: http://secure.ngf.
org/cgi/catalogsearchdetail.asp?ITEMNUMBER=99mr254 (accessed February 23, 2017).
Seggev, E. (1982), “Testing persuasion by strategic positioning”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 37-42.
Wind, Y. (1985), Product Policy: Concepts, Methods, and Strategy, 8th ed., Addison-Wesley, 471
Reading, MA.
Young, S. (1972), “Copy testing without magic numbers”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 3-12.

Corresponding author
J. Lucy Lee can be contacted at: jielee@bgsu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com