# Decisions: Brand Positioning

Critical decision points that determine brand positioning success.

---

## Decision 1: Category King vs. Category Participant

**Context:** When entering or defining your market category.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Create New Category** | Own the rules, be first, potential monopoly | Requires education, slow, expensive | Genuinely new approach, can't win in existing, have resources for education |
| **Win Existing Category** | Known demand, clear playbook, faster | Crowded, competing on their terms | Can be #1 or #2, differentiation clear, existing category fits |
| **Niche Within Category** | Easier to dominate, focused positioning | Ceiling risk, smaller market | Can't win overall category, underserved niche exists |

**Framework:**
```
Can you be #1 or #2 in the existing category?
├── Yes → Compete to win existing category
└── No → Continue

Is there an underserved niche you could dominate?
├── Yes → Niche strategy
└── No → Continue

Do you have a genuinely different approach?
├── Yes → Consider category creation
└── No → Reconsider product-market fit
```

**Default Recommendation:** Niche first, expand later. Category creation requires significant resources and patience. Most companies overestimate their ability to educate markets.

---

## Decision 2: Emotional vs. Functional Positioning

**Context:** When determining the primary axis of your positioning.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Functional** | Clear, measurable, easy to prove | Easily copied, commoditized | B2B rational buyers, clear ROI story |
| **Emotional** | Defensible, loyalty-building, memorable | Harder to prove, feels "soft" | Consumer, identity-based purchase |
| **Hybrid** | Balanced appeal | May dilute both | Complex purchase, multiple stakeholders |

**Framework:**
```
How do customers decide in your category?
- Spreadsheet comparison → Functional first
- Gut/identity decision → Emotional first
- Multiple stakeholders → Hybrid (functional proof, emotional appeal)

Purchase Regret Type:
- "I wasted money" → Need functional proof
- "This doesn't feel like me" → Need emotional fit
- Both → Hybrid approach
```

**Default Recommendation:** Lead with emotional, prove with functional. People make emotional decisions and justify with logic. Even B2B buyers are humans.

---

## Decision 3: Premium vs. Value Positioning

**Context:** When determining price-based positioning strategy.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Premium** | Higher margins, perceived quality, loyalty | Smaller market, high expectations | Superior product/experience, target can afford, brand supports it |
| **Value** | Larger market, growth potential | Margin pressure, commoditization risk | Efficiency advantage, price-sensitive market, scale economics |
| **Mid-market** | Accessible market size | Stuck in middle, no clear identity | Transitioning between tiers (temporary) |

**Framework:**
```
Can you deliver a genuinely premium experience?
├── No → Don't position premium
└── Yes → Continue

Does your target customer value premium?
├── No → Value positioning
└── Yes → Continue

Can you sustain premium pricing long-term?
├── No → Value positioning
└── Yes → Premium positioning
```

**Default Recommendation:** Pick a lane. Mid-market is death for most brands. Either be clearly premium (and deliver on it) or clearly value (and own that position). The middle is where brands go to die.

---

## Decision 4: Broad vs. Narrow Target

**Context:** When defining target audience scope.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Broad** | Large TAM, diverse revenue | Generic messaging, hard to connect | Late stage, horizontal product, platform play |
| **Narrow** | Deep connection, efficient marketing, word-of-mouth | Limited scale, ceiling risk | Early stage, building PMF, vertical product |

**Framework:**
```
Stage of company:
- Pre-PMF → Go narrow (find your champions)
- Post-PMF → Consider broadening
- Scaling → Broad with segment-specific execution

Product type:
- Horizontal tool → Can go broader sooner
- Vertical solution → Stay narrow longer
```

**Default Recommendation:** Start narrow, expand after dominance. You can always broaden a position; you can't easily narrow one once you've spread thin.

---

## Decision 5: Challenger vs. Establishment Positioning

**Context:** When determining brand personality relative to market leaders.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Challenger** | Energizing, differentiated, attracts early adopters | Polarizing, may alienate risk-averse | You're smaller, incumbent is disliked, audience values disruption |
| **Establishment** | Trust, safety, credibility | Boring, undifferentiated | Enterprise sales, risk-averse buyers, mature market |

**Framework:**
```
Who is your customer?
- Early adopters → Challenger works
- Late majority → Establishment safer

What's the incumbent's weakness?
- Complacent/arrogant → Attack as challenger
- Trusted/reliable → Don't attack, differentiate elsewhere

What's your authentic personality?
- Scrappy/rebellious → Challenger is natural
- Credible/serious → Establishment is natural
```

**Default Recommendation:** Challenger positioning is powerful but must be authentic. Don't fake rebellion. If you're genuinely challenging the status quo, own it. If not, find another angle.

---

## Decision 6: Single Brand vs. Multi-Brand

**Context:** When determining brand architecture for multiple products.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Single (Branded House)** | Brand equity leverage, clarity, efficiency | Risk of confusion, limits positioning | Products are related, target is same, brand is strong (Google, Apple) |
| **Multi (House of Brands)** | Segment flexibility, risk isolation, distinct positioning | Expensive, no equity transfer | Different targets, brand risk, acquisition integration (P&G) |
| **Hybrid (Endorsed)** | Balance of equity and distinction | Complexity | Sub-brands need credibility boost (Marriott Bonvoy) |

**Framework:**
```
Are products for the same customer?
├── Yes → Lean toward single brand
└── No → Lean toward multi-brand

Would failure of one hurt others?
├── Yes → Multi-brand protects
└── No → Single brand efficient

Is the master brand strong enough to help?
├── Yes → Single or endorsed
└── No → Build individual brands
```

**Default Recommendation:** Single brand until you have a strong reason otherwise. Multi-brand is expensive and usually unnecessary for most companies.

---

## Decision 7: Timeless vs. Timely Positioning

**Context:** When determining how trend-connected your positioning should be.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Timeless** | Enduring, builds over time, no refresh needed | May feel outdated, misses moments | Core value proposition is permanent, long-term brand building |
| **Timely** | Relevant, captures attention, feels current | Needs constant updating, risky if trend fades | Short-term campaigns, trend-based product, cultural moments |

**Framework:**
```
Is your core value proposition trend-dependent?
├── Yes → Must stay timely
└── No → Can be timeless

Campaign vs. Brand positioning?
- Brand = Timeless (core doesn't change)
- Campaign = Can be timely (moment-specific)

Resource for constant refresh?
├── Yes → Can support timely
└── No → Default to timeless
```

**Default Recommendation:** Timeless brand positioning, timely campaign execution. Your core position should endure; your expression of it can be current.

---

## Decision 8: Product-Led vs. Company-Led Positioning

**Context:** When determining what entity carries the positioning.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Product-Led** | Clear, easy to understand, feature-specific | Limits company scope, vulnerable to product changes | Single product company, product IS the company |
| **Company-Led** | Flexibility, multiple products, vision-focused | Abstract, harder to connect to offering | Multiple products, platform company, vision-driven |

**Framework:**
```
How many products do you have/plan?
- One product (for now) → Product-led
- Multiple or platform → Company-led

Is your vision bigger than current product?
├── Yes → Company-led (express vision)
└── No → Product-led (express product value)
```

**Default Recommendation:** Product-led for early stage, company-led as you expand. Most startups are their product; don't over-abstract too early.

---

## Decision 9: Rational vs. Controversial Positioning

**Context:** When determining how provocative your positioning should be.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Rational/Safe** | Broad appeal, low risk, enterprise-friendly | Forgettable, undifferentiated | Risk-averse buyers, regulated industry, late-stage company |
| **Controversial/Bold** | Memorable, word-of-mouth, passionate fans | Polarizing, may alienate, higher risk | Crowded market, strong POV, audience values bold |

**Framework:**
```
What's your authentic point of view?
- Strong opinions → Can support controversy
- Measured approach → Stay rational

What does your audience value?
- Safety/trust → Rational positioning
- Bold/different → Can be controversial

Can you handle backlash?
├── Yes → Controversy can work
└── No → Stay rational
```

**Default Recommendation:** Be as bold as you authentically can be. Generic positioning is the biggest risk - you get ignored entirely. But manufactured controversy backfires.

---

## Decision 10: Global vs. Local Positioning

**Context:** When determining geographic scope of positioning.

**Options:**

| Option | Pros | Cons | Choose When |
|--------|------|------|-------------|
| **Global Unified** | Consistent, efficient, scalable | May miss local nuance, cultural risks | Universal value proposition, global brand, efficiency priority |
| **Local Adapted** | Cultural relevance, local connection | Expensive, complex, brand fragmentation risk | Culture-dependent category, local competition, diverse markets |

**Framework:**
```
Is your value proposition culturally universal?
├── Yes → Global unified possible
└── No → Need local adaptation

Do you have resources for local execution?
├── No → Force global unified
└── Yes → Continue

Do competitors have local positioning advantage?
├── Yes → Must adapt locally
└── No → Global unified works
```

**Default Recommendation:** Global strategy with local execution. Core positioning should be universal; expression can adapt to cultural context.
