DENNIS H.

GENSCH *

Product positioning studies for both new and established products generally
involve consumers' perception of the current product space in terms of the
salient product attributes. Perceptions per brand attribute ore hypothesized
to be a function of direct measurement and brand "image." The influences
of direct measurement and image ore separated. The first step in penetrating
a product market is to look for segments of rival brand customers for which
there is a significant gap between image and direct measurement perceptions.
A second consideration is the strength of the "image" in terms of actually
changing the direct measurements. The author empirically illustrates how to
identify penetrable market segments in terms of image-direct measurement
influences and discusses the implications of this type of information in forming
a realistic product positioning strategy.

Image-Measurement Segmentation

In a substantial number of studies in the marketing
literature the consumer's evaluation of product attri-
butes is used to determine the current perception space
for competing brands of a product [3, 6, 15, 21, 29,
31] . Products seldom are measured or evaluated as
single lump entities; rather it is the attributes of the
alternatives that are measured, compared, and form
the basis for choice. A standard procedure is to
introduce a preference point such as "ideal" point
or brand most often purchased into this perception
space and then use a decision metric to determine
where a given brand should be positioned to maximize
the number of people preferring it [5, 8, 17]. Segments
of the general population who, in terms of their ideal
positions within the perception space, appear most
likely to respond favorably to a new product formula-
tion or a particular repositioning of an existing product
are identified. Marketing strategy then is devised to
exploit the identified segments. A similar approach
is used to find holes within the perception space which
yield insights into how a new product should be
formulated and positioned in relation to the current
product mix [17, 19, 20, 27]. Much of this work is
reviewed in [24, 31] .
The implicit assumption of these research ap-
*Dennis H. Gensch is Professor of Marketing, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
384
proaches is that brand preference is a function of
the perception space associated with the alternatives.
The author takes the position that perception consists
of two components, the individual's ability to obtain
measures of the brand attributes on factors he consid-
ers important, and the "image" of each brand. The
term "image" as usually defined and discussed in
the marketing literature is an abstract concept incor-
porating the influences of past promotion, reputation,
and peer evaluation of the alternative. Image connotes
the expectations of a consumer. The interaction of
these two variables, individual attribute measurement3
and image, is assumed to vary across product types
and across individuals.
In the studies cited, particularly those concerned
with new product positioning, three conceptually dif-
ferent measures of product perception are used. One
is the procedure of asking individuals to use and
evaluate unlabeled samples of the current alternatives.
The perception space derived from these data is the
measurement perception space. This space is inter-
preted as revealing the relative position of alternatives
uncontaminated by the influence of various brand
images. In the second procedure, individuals are
simply asked to rate the alternatives by brand name
only, with no trial samples provided. This space is
the image perception space. In the third procedure,
individuals are asked to rate actual samples of a labeled
product. This approach produces a measurement in-
fluenced by image perception space.

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XV (August 1978), 384-94
IMAGE-MEASUREMENT SEGMENTATION
It is not only possible, but in many cases probable,
that the three methods will generate different percep-
tion and preference spaces for the same individuals
over the same set of alternatives because each of
the methods emphasizes a different measure of per-
ception. A comparison of the different perception
spaces can provide some very useful information for
determining the marketing strategy for product posi-
tioning. A comparison between the measurement space
and the image space for the same individuals can
provide insights into if and how the image of a product
differs from the actual product perception. In many
cases a significant difference between product percep-
tion and product image represents a marketing oppor-
tunity which competing products can exploit.
A comparison between the measurement space and
the measurement influenced by image space would
indicate the degree to which image actually changes
or influences each of the product attribute perceptions.
This type of information is extremely valuable when
a firm wishes to reposition a product and must decide
if the repositioning requires a change in the product
itself or simply a change in the promotional image
of the product.
The author takes a segmentation approach to the
product positioning analysis. The segmentation ap-
proach directly recognizes that a particular reposition-
ing move for a product may be perceived differently
and reacted to differently by various segments of the
total market. In this study, the customers for each
of the competing major brands in one geographic
market place are segmented (by brand) in an attempt
to fmd and identify various segments of consumers
currently purchasing a rival brand who appear suscep-
tible to the subject brand under various repositioning
strategies. Initially segments are sought in which there
is a significant difference between a product's mea-
surement perception and image perception. Then on
the basis of the strength of image influence on percep-
tion, the "ideal" preference point of the segment,
and the current perception of the subject brand, an
attempt is made to determine where and to what degree
various repositioning strategies will enable the firm
to penetrate the markets of major competitors.
Furthermore, it is argued that a positioning and
segmentation approach that takes into account both
major components of perception will suggest seg-
mentation marketing strategies that are more feasible
to implement than an approach which implicitly as-
sumes that the brand perception spaces derived from
measurement and image are identical.
Image-measurement segmentation appears to be
particularly relevant for mature products for which
an increase in one brand's sales comes principally
from capturing the current customers of other brands.
In the next section the theory of when and how
image-measurement segmentation can be implemented
is discussed. An empirical application is presented
385
in which consumer perceptions of competing brands
of a commercial beverage are analyzed. The author
has agreed not to reveal the names of the specific
product attributes involved. However, though the
names of the attributes are changed, the statistical
relationships among the coded attributes are the actual
empirical values.
THE THEORY
The concept of using image-measurement seg-
mentation to identify opportunity segments is hardly
a new idea. The concept is well grounded in behavioral
theory and probably has been used in various forms
by competing brand managers for years. From psy-
chology one learns that when an individual becomes
aware that his expectations differ from his perception
of reality, dissonance occurs and the individual will
seek to reduce his dissonance by aligning his percep-
tions to his current choice or by seeking a new
alternative.
In the marketing context, the use of an image-mea-
surement segmentation approach requires two condi-
tions. First, the product must be one for which both
image and actual perceptions interact in determining
brand preference. Second, one must be able to measure
image as well as actual product perceptions.
For what product types is it reasonable to expect
that image will influence brand preference? In market-
ing theory, image generally is assumed to have a more
significant role in product situations in which the
individual has difficulty obtaining objective measures
on the important product attributes. General industrial
products for which exact performance, cost, delivery,
and service specifications are objectively measured
and provided to the prospective customer represent
a class of products for which image usually is not
regarded as a significant determinant of brand prefer-
ence. Consider the situation in which objective mea-
surements on product attributes are not available.
There are two general cases-first the case in which
variables such as price, availability, or product effects
prevent individuals from personally trying and evaluat-
ing the competing brands, and second the case in
which the attributes are not easily objectively stand-
ardized but rather require subjective judgments based
on direct usage. The first case is not suitable for
image-measurement segmentation because there are
no direct perceptions. Examples of this situation are
marketing attempts to estimate consumer reaction to
a new product or service prior to its development
or implementation. For the second case, in which
product perceptions involve direct usage, it is
hypothesized that the more subjective the attribute
measurements, the more likely image will be a signifi-
cant interactive variable in determining brand prefer-
ences. A wide range of consumer products which have
important preference attributes such as taste, style,
and comfort (which require subjective judgments
386
rather than objective measurements) fit this classifica-
tion and thus are potential candidates for image-mea-
surement segmentation.
A commercial beverage was the product used in
empirical work to represent the type of product for
which image-measurement segmentation may provide
useful insights. The taste attributes of this beverage
generally are recognized as very important variables
in the determination of relative brand preference. One
method of obtaining consumer perceptions of taste
is to ask a representative sample of consumers to
evaluate brands on several taste attributes. Clearly,
these evaluations of taste are subjective judgments
rather than objective measurements on the part of
the consumer.
In the following section, the methodological steps
used in analyzing the sets of product attribute data
for the purpose of image-measurement segmentation
are illustrated. Four basic stages are required in
image-measurement segmentation. First, one must
determine whether the individuals can consistently
measure the particular attribute words used in the
study. If there is no individual consistency in the
subjective judgments, there is little point in building
an analytic design on spurious data. If the subjective
judgments are individually consistent, the second stage
includes a search for significant differences between
actual perception and image for a group of consumers.
Though recognizing that this type of analysis may
be performed on an attribute-by-attribute basis, the
author suggests a method for mapping the entire image
space directly onto the measurement perception space
which provides the researcher with a clearer picture
of the entire process than that provided by the attri-
bute-by-attribute approach. The same methodological
procedure can be used to evaluate the degree to which
image appears to influence direct taste perceptions.
The third stage is an attempt to determine demo-
graphic or other meaningful groupings of consumers
with significant differences between image and actual
perceptions or for which image appears to be signifi-
cantly influencing the taste perception. Relating the
image-measurement segments to consumption and
demographic data often enables the researcher to
evaluate the relative importance of the segments and
to identify marketing vehicles specifically suited for
a given demographic segment. The final stage is to
indicate the possible marketing strategies the firm
might pursue in relation to various segments of com-
petitors' brands.
EMPIRICAL APPLICATION
The empirical study involved the consumer's taste
and image evaluation of four competing brands of
a commercial beverage. Individuals were asked to
evaluate each beverage in terms of 17 taste attributes.
The first empirical analysis was an attempt to identify
segments of the population in which the image of
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1978
a brand differs considerably from the actual taste
perception. By the same method, the image-measure-
ment segmentation approach was used to identify
situations in which the image is modifying the actual
taste perceptions. Knowledge of the degree and direc-
tion in which image differs from or is influencing
the taste perceptions of a brand has important market-
ing implications.
The empirical analysis is described in three sections:
first, the data used in the study are defined and a
brief discussion of the rationale underlying the experi-
mental design is provided; second, the basic rotational
methodology used in the image-measurement seg-
mentation approach is explained; finally, the findings
and the marketing implications of using image-mea-
surement on the data sets are considered.
Experimental Design of Data
Two data sets with similar experimental designs were
used. Because these data sets also were used for
purposes other than the image-measurement seg-
mentation, the questionnaires contained more in-
formation than required for this study. In the larger
data set, the target sample size was 960 individuals;
in actuality l ,005 good questionnaires were obtained.
Each individual was asked to rate his "ideal" product
in terms of 17 taste attributes of the beverage. The
clarity and uniqueness of meaning of each of these
attributes had been discussed in focus groups and
tested in previous field studies. "Uniqueness of mean-
ing" means that the attribute word is not multidimen-
sional in terms of having more than one interpretation
or meaning. This characteristic does not imply,
however, that there is statistical independence among
the 17 one-dimensional taste words; indeed, there is
a clear intercorrelation structure among these words.
After rating the ideal product an individual rated a
sequence of three unlabeled brands on each of the
17 attributes. A series of demographic, consumption
pattern, and brand preference questions followed.
Most individuals needed about 20 minutes to answer
these questions. A second series of three unlabeled
taste tests then were given, followed by two labeled
taste tests. On each taste test the individual was asked
to rate the brand on 17 taste attributes. The sequence
of blind taste tests and labeled tests followed a rotated
design for four brands of the beverage. The four brands
were selected by the research department of the firm
to provide a range in taste characteristics and to
provide a mix of national and regional brands. A
rotated design was used for the four brands (A, B,
C, and D) being tested (Table 1).
The smaller data set consisted of 615 individuals.
The same four brands were involved and the sample
was drawn from the same population as the previous
data set. Again the rotated design of three blind taste
tests was used. After the demographic and consump-
tion questions, individuals were asked to rate two
IMAGE-MEASUREMENT SEGMENTATION 387

Table 1
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Blind taste tests

No. of No. of No. of
individuals 2 3 4 5 6 individuals 2 individuals 2
80 A B A A B A 40 A B 40 B A
80 B A B B A B 40 A B 40 B A
80 A c A A c A 40 A c 40 c A
80 c A c c A c 40 A c 40 c A
80 A D A A D A 40 A D 40 D A
80 D A D D A D 40 A D 40 D A
80 B c B B c B 40 B c 40 c B
80 c B c c B c 40 B c 40 c B
80 B D B B D B 40 B D 40 D B
80 D B D D B D 40 B D 40 D B
80 c D c c D c 40 c D 40 D c
80
--
D c D D c D 40 c D 40 D c
960 480 480
Note that each individual rates the same brand on the 1st and 3rd blind taste test, replicates the blind taste sequence on the 4th,
5th, and 6th tests, and finally rates the brands when he knows the label. The respondents were not informed of the number of brands
being tested or the design being used.

brands on the 17 taste attributes. Individuals were
not given any of the beverage to taste; this task was
simply a rating of the brand name. The brand names
that were rated corresponded to the brands an individ-
ual rated in the blind taste part of the questionnaire.
The reason for using two separate samples (n =
1,005 and n = 615) was to obtain more information
on the relationship between image and measurement
than is obtainable in one research design. The first
step in implementing an image-measurement seg-
mentation strategy is to identify segments in which
there is a significant difference between the measure-
ment and image perceptions. Segments with substantial
differences are considered potentially vulnerable to
penetration by another brand. To estimate if and how
the subject brand can feasibly penetrate the segment
with a specific positioning strategy, the firm must
know whether the image of the rival brand is so strong
as to modify the measurement perceptions of the
attributes. If this is the case it will be extremely difficult
to make these customers aware that there is a gap
between their expectations and their actual perception
of the rival product. Because of cost considerations
and the potential for biased results in asking the same
individual to rate the same brands on pure image,
labeled taste, and blind taste, two samples of similar
individuals were used. The first sample provided
measurement (blind taste) and image information on
the same brand. The second sample provided mea-
surement and the influence of image on measurement
(labeled taste) information on the same set of brands.
The blind taste data were analyzed to determine
whether individuals were consistent in their ability
to rate the taste attributes. In each design, each
individual rated the same brand more than once in
the blind taste section of the questionnaire. Essentially
a correlation coefficient over the 17 attribute ratings
was calculated for each individual. This consistency
check revealed that individuals were able to rate
consistently the four brands of the beverage (Appendix
A). A full exposition of this procedure is found in
[9].
Determining Significant Image-Measurement
Differences
Given that an individual can consistently rate a brand
of this beverage on a series of measurement (blind
taste) tests, the next step is to determine the signifi-
cance of the differences between the individual's
measurement ratings of the brand and the image (brand
name only) rating. One method of analysis is to
compute a mean and variance of the measurement
ratings on each attribute by individual. Variance of
the individual's rating of the attribute on different
trials of the same brand in the blind taste sequence
can be viewed as the measurement error associated
with this attribute rating. Then the image rating is
compared with the mean of the individual's measure-
ment rating and one can make statements as to how
significant the difference is. The use of a multivariate
statistic such as Hotelling's T 2 or a Mahalanobis
statistic can provide an overall test of the null
hypothesis, H 0 : image = measurement, H 1 : image =I=
measurement, for the 17 attributes as a set. Though
this approach is rather straightforward and probably
is the best now available, it is difficult to put the
individual bits of attribute information together into
a pattern that gives a researcher an adequate overview'.
Generally the researcher is interested in exactly how
the image differs from product perception as well as
the statistical significance of the degree of difference.
In an attempt to provide a better overview, the author
presents an approach by which the image space is
388
mapped directly onto the actual taste perception space.
The attribute data were factor analyzed by brand.
In all of the various sets of data (measurement, image,
and image influence on measurement) the same two
strong factors appeared. These two factors ¥~nerally
explained 50% of the variance of the ongmal 17
dimensional space, an<l thus represent. a .1a.rge pa!t
of the perception space used by most md1v~duals m the mean difference of the factor scores in the mea-
analyzing the taste of alternative brands of this bever-
age.
Individuals do not appear to have considered the
alternative brands in the richness of a complex 17
dimensional space. Rather, they have abstracted down
to a few dimensions they can handle conceptually.
Empirical support from studies in psychology [ 16,
23] and information processing [18, 25] su~gests .that
individuals abstract down to a very few d1mens1ons
in most choice decisions.
Note that in theory the results of factor analysis
do not necessarily rule out the possible existence of
more than two basic dimensions. There could be other
important perceptual dimensions that are not strongly
related to the particular set of 17 taste attributes used
in this survey. In this particular case, given the variance
explained by the two dimensions, the previous research
on taste attributes from which this set of 17 has
evolved, and the range of the current set, it is difficult
to hypothesize what other possible dim~nsions wo~ld
be used commonly as part of the basic perception
space for the beverage. Though ?ne attrib~te might
represent an independent factor m and of itself, ~n
examination of the third through sixth factors m
various runs failed to reveal any one attribute factor.
Given that the taste attributes are aligned by individ-
uals within this two-dimensional space, one would
like to compare the perceptual space associated with
the measurement taste test with the perceptual space
associated with the image of the brand. The first
comparison would be in terms of the two basic
dimensions. When individuals rate the brand name
do they substantially change the position of the brand
from where they positioned the brand in the measure-
ment rating? The difference in factor scores between
the measurement perception space and the image
perception space would indicate whether o~ not there
was a substantial difference between the image and
actual taste perception of a brand. Because the factor
loadings on each dimension provide a positionin¥ of
each attribute in the perception space, a more refmed
analysis would indicate differences between image and
taste on an attribute-by-attribute basis. To map the
image space onto the perception spac~ in a ma~ner
that will make the factor scores and attnbute loadmgs
as directly comparable as possible, the two spaces
are rotated into maximum congruence before factor
score and attribute loading differences are computed
(Appendix B). This procedure is discussed in more
detail in [ 10].
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1978
Jmage-Measurement Segmentation
The larger data set containing measurement and
image ratings of the four brands of the beverage were
factor analyzed separately for each brand, then the
measurement and image spaces were rotated to maxi-
mum congruence. The factor scores on the two taste
dimension factors were computed. Then, by brand,
surement and image spaces was computed. Table 2
indicates the level of significance associated with the
difference in factor scores.
This aggregate measure indicates two significant
differences. In terms of image, brand 2 was viewed
as having a higher factor l content than was perceived
in actual taste testing. The image of brand 4 was
significantly higher on factor 2 than the perception
based on actual taste testing. These results appear
reasonable in that brand 2 is a national brand with
a strong promotional campaign that has consistently
portrayed the beverage as being strong on factor l.
Brand 4 is a regional brand that previously had a
strong advertising program emphasizing qualities
associated with the second taste factor.
Once statistically significant differences between
measurement and image perceptions have been ob-
served at the aggregate level, the next step is to move
to the micro or individual level to determine whether
these differences are universal over the entire sample
or if there are identifiable segments of the sample
for which the measurement-image perception dif-
ference is considerably above or below the sample
average. Brands 2 and 4 appear to ~ave substanti~l
differences between measurement and image on a basic
taste dimension.
The euclidean distance was compared for each
individual between his measurement rating and image
rating in the two-dimensional factor space. The larger
this distance the greater the difference between the
individual's measurement and image perception of the
brand. The euclidean distance was used as a dependent
variable in an AID analysis [26] . The independent
variables consisted of 17 demographic and consump-
tion variables, the individual's correlation coefficient
representing his ability to measure consistently the
taste attributes, and his factor l and factor 2 scores
on the ideal beverage. The ideal factor scores represent
an individual's relative preference for each of two
Table 2
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL AT WHICH MEAN DIFFERENCES
OF FACTOR SCORES OF MEASUREMENT AND IMAGE
DIFFER BY BRAND
Brand I Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand4
Factor I .112 .Oil .625 .415
Factor 2 .525 .482 .711 .039
IMAGE-MEASUREMENT SEGMENTATION
Figure 1
AID ANALYSIS OF BRAND 2 MEASUREMENT-IMAGE DIFFERENCES
~ ~e~~: consumptio~
~~ ~ h~~
1223.04
x= 3.92
Used brand two
14% in last three
n = 312 months
3 x = 4.05
n = 231
basic dimensions. A sample size of 1,000 or more
is usually recommended for an AID analysis, but use
of the option to eliminate extreme outliers allows
reasonable information on relationships between each
independent variable and the dependent to be obtained
with a sample size exceeding 300. The smaller sample
size does restrict the number of splits one is willing
to interpret. One must be particularly concerned with
the skewness and correlation among the variables.
See [7] for a critical analysis of the AID technique.
The results of this AID analysis for brand 2 are
shown in Figure 1. There were 312 individuals. The
average euclidean distance between measurement and
image perception in the 17 dimensional space was
3.92. The first split explained 14% of the variation.
The split was on a dichotomous independent variable
indicating whether or not brand 2 was one of the
brands the individual indicated he had tried in the
last three months. This is a particularly meaningful
split in that this variable is heavily skewed and as
such has less chance of entering the analysis than
nonskewed predictor variables [7] . Group 2, which
consisted of 91 individuals who claimed to have used
brand 2 within the last three months, split in terms
of consumption. An analysis of heavy consumers
indicated more of a gap between measurement and
image perception than was found for the light and
medium users. This finding was somewhat surprising,
as one would think that the more an individual used
a product the closer his expectation or perception
of product image would be to his actual blind taste
perception. Group 7 then becomes a potential target
segment. There is a significant measurement-image
perception gap, and this group consumes 8.4 times
the average for the total sample; clearly this is a heavy
consumers segment. For members of group 7, con-
sumption and the "ideal" taste factor l score had
a high positive correlation (p = .76). Group 3, which
consisted of individuals who had not tried brand 2
389
\\'b't>\ 6 2.56
3
r;-4.621
~
~\0~~3.59
,.;~~ 153
e»"
~
17% "ideal" factor one score
~
~
in the last three months, split in terms of the factor
l score associated with the "ideal" beverage. It
appears that people who like a beverage that is high
on factor 1 taste have much greater expectations for
brand 2, which advertises along this dimension, than
individuals with preferences for beverages with low
to medium factor 1 taste content.
Note that this same "ideal" factor l preference
split also explained 24% of the variance associated
with group 2. A dummy variable regression was run
using the euclidean distance as the dependent variable.
An R 2 of .15 was obtained, which indicated consider-
able within-group variation. The t-values were signifi-
cant at the .05 level for the dummy variables "used
this brand in last three months" and "high" preference
on "ideal" first factor taste dimension. See [2] for
an excellent discussion of group versus individual
criteria for market segmentation.
The AID results for brand 4 are shown in Figure
2. Again whether or not the individual used the brand
in the last three months was the most significant
variable. As with brand 2, the gap between image
and measurement perception is greater for those indi-
viduals who are not currently using the brand. This
finding seems logical. Also, for those consumers who
are current users of the brand, the variable explaining
the most variation is again the preference position
(ideal score) on a basic taste dimension. Group 7,
though containing only 38% of the current users of
brand 4, contains 84% of the heavy users of brand
4. In a dummy variable regression on these data the
variables found to be significant at the .05 level in
their relationship with the image-measurement euclid-
ean distance were the dichotomous variable of whether
or not the brand had been tried in the last three months
and the interactive variable of current user and high
ideal score on taste factor 2.
Having identified some segments in which there
is a significant difference between measurement and
390 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1978

Figure 2
AID ANALYSIS OF BRAND 4 MEASUREMENT-IMAGE DIFFERENCES

X= 4.01 Used brand four

n = 318 32% in last three
months
1:3.921
~

~
~

image perceptions of a brand, one can analyze the A graph of the two factor spaces shows the attribute
second data set which contains measurements of the loadings on factor l increasing substantially when the
influence of image on the taste perceptions. Samples consumer knows that it is brand 2 he is tasting. The
of at least 300 individuals who claimed to have tried positive loadings becoming more positive and the
the given brand within the last three months were negative loadings more negative. The total variance
drawn. The factor spaces of the measurement (unla- explained by factor l for brand 2 increases from 34%
beled taste) and the influence of image on taste in the measurement factor space to more than 43%
perception (labeled taste) were rotated to maximum in the image influence on measurement (labeled taste)
congruence. Table 3 provides the euclidean distances space. Furthermore, brand 2 is advertised and promot-
between the measurement taste and image-influenced ed as a strong factor l beverage. It appears that the
measurement perception spaces for each of the 17 image of brand 2 does influence the perceptual ratings
attributes. of those attributes related to the first factor taste
Brand 2 has a number of substantial movements dimension (Appendix C).
as indicated by the parentheses. The seven attributes Brand 2 presents the interesting marketing situation
that have the major movements correspond directly in which the product's image is so strong along one
to the seven attributes making up the first factor. major taste dimension that it actually influences the
measurement perception of taste attributes which are
Tobie 3 highly correlated with the first taste dimension. Again
EUCLIDEAN DISTANCES BETWEEN MEASUREMENT AND an empirical question arises of whether the strong
IMAGE-INFLUENCED MEASUREMENT PERCEPTION
image influence is universal over all brand 2 drinkers
or whether some segments' measurement perceptions
SPACES
are more influenced than those of others by the image.
In the second sample 328 individuals indicated they
Attribute had drunk two or more glasses of brand 2 within
number Brand I Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand4
the last three months .
I .08 . 07 .II .06
2 .21 (.58) .16 .13
An AID analysis was conducted using the euclidean
3 .14 .12 .17 .19 distance between each individual's measurement per-
4 .41 (.62) .15 .12 ceptions (blind taste) and influence of image on per-
5 .17 .13 .07 .21 ception (labeled taste) of brand 2. These distances
6 . II .06 .09 .13 were computed after the rotation to maximum con-
7 .29 (.31) .19 .14
8 .36 (.69) .23 .18 gruence. The results of this AID analysis are shown
9 .16 .18 .25 .14 in Figure 3. The total variation explained by the four
10 .39 (.36) .16 .17 splits is 33.15%. Group I contains 328 individuals
11 .18 .12 .II .16 whose average euclidean distance between the percep-
12 .09 .07 .08 .II
13 .22 (.48) .16 .15
tion spaces on brand 2 was 3.27. The 54 individuals
14 .12 .16 .15 .13 making up group 6 tended to prefer less of a strong
15 .18 .15 .II .21 factor l taste in their ideal beverage than did the
16 .08 .II .13 .15 remainder of group 4. Group 9 consisted of individuals
17 .48 (.51) .14 .21 in which image appeared to modify substantially the
IMAGE-MEASUREMENT SEGMENTATION
Figure 3
SEGMENTATION OF BRAND 2'S MARKET BY IMAGE INFLUENCE ON MEASUREMENT PERCEPTION
2
n = 224
x = 2.97
~
-1
n = 328
I 1 x = 3.27 I age 16%
'"?
104 I
13 xn == 3.92 :
taste perception of the beverage. Cross-tabs run on
group 9 revealed it to be a heavy consumption segment,
young, blue collar, male, with high factor 1 scores
and slightly below average consistency scores. Be-
cause group 9 contained 42 % of the individuals classi-
fied as heavy consumers of brand 2, it is considered
an important segment. As indicated in Table 3, the
influence of image measurement perceptions for brand
4 was not very strong for the entire sample, nor did
the AID approach identify an individual segment in
which the influence of image appeared to modify
significantly the measurement (blind taste) perceptions
of the brand.
Marketing Implications of Image-Measurement
Segmentation
The firm wishes to position its brand in relation
to competitive brands in a way that will make it the
most preferred brand, particularly in segments of the
population that are heavy consumers of the beverage.
A complete positioning analysis involves multiple
markets, each with a different competitive structure
of brands, multiple brands, and other decision varia-
bles besides taste. Such an undertaking is beyond the
scope of this report.
At this point in time, image-measurement segmenta-
tion apparently can identify opportunity segments in
the current competitive environment. These opportu-
nities are discussed in this section along with strategy
suggestions as to how these opportunities can be used
by a firm. It should be clear that whatever the basic
positioning strategy of a firm, there will be tradeoffs
among the segments. By gathering this type of data
in a number of major markets and empirically testing
some of the competitive strategies suggested for
seizing image-measurement opportunities, the firm
391
16 xn == 54
2.33
I
14
n =
X= 93
2.61.I
lliea·
11Jlli
17 xn == 2.99
39 I
:
Is '! = 131
x = 3.22
I
= 66
18
n
x = 3.71
n = 38
19 x = 4.27
hopes to determine a rational position for their brand
in terms of its taste properties and promotional
campaign that will enable it to retain current customers
while penetrating some vulnerable high growth, high
volume segments of competitors.
There is a substantial segment of brand 4 customers
(group 7, Figure 2) in terms of both numbers and
average consumption for which past promotion has
generated an image of its factor 2 taste content that
was simply not supported in actual unlabeled taste
tests. Further analysis of brand 4 customers in terms
of both the "ideal" factor scores and the regression
of factor scores on the two latent dimensions against
a preference score revealed that brand 4 customers
tended to be looking for a high degree of taste factor
2 in their beverage. The measurement perception data
also revealed that the subject brand actually was
perceived to be a bit higher on factor 2 content than
brand 4.
The firm might be able to exploit brand 4's vulnera-
bility by slightly increasing the taste factor 2 compo-
nent of its beverage to make this difference clear
in a blind taste test and then promoting this theme.
Individuals seeking a brand that is strong on taste
factor 2 would be drawn by the image to either brand
4 or the subject brand. A taste trial would reveal
to the individual that brand 4 did not actually have
the desired high level of the factor 2 taste dimension
implied by its image. The subject brand, also promoted
on the basis of factor 2 taste content, would, if tried,
be preferred because the factor 2 content would in
actuality be higher and consumers have indicated they
can measure this taste dimension reliably. Also, cur-
rent brand 4 customers who desire a beverage high
on factor 2 might try an alternative brand that promoted
this taste prooerty. Because the brand 4 image does
392
not appear strong enough actually to change the taste
perceptions, it seems feasible that those brand 4
customers trying the subject brand would recognize
it as superior on the factor 2 taste dimension and
switch.
Brand 2 presents an image-measurement opportunity
in terms of the first taste factor. The data in which
measurement (blind taste) was compared with image
revealed a substantial gap on this taste dimension.
A substantial segment (group 7, Figure l) appears
to be an attractive target for penetration. Indeed, at
first glance this segment appears much more appealing
than the potential target segment of brand 4 (group
7, Figure 2). The brand 2 segment (group 7, Figure
l) has a larger image-measurement gap, is numerically
larger, can be identified demographically, and has 3.2
times the average consumption of brand 4's target
segment.
Though this brand 2 segment represents a very
desirable target for the firm, additional analysis seems
to indicate that this segment may be rather difficult
to penetrate. The problem, as indicated by the analysis
of the second data set, is that the promotion or image
of brand 2 with respect to the first taste factor is
so strong that it actually influences the taste perceptions
for brand 2's customers. In fact the group whose taste
perceptions seem to be influenced the most is group
9 (Figure 3). It contains the same demographic and
heavy consumption consumers found in the initial
target segment (group 7, Figure 1). These consumers
indicate a strong preference for a beverage that is
very high on taste factor l. In the measurement (blind
taste) evaluation the subject brand currently is per-
ceived as being just below brand 2 in terms of taste
factor l . However, in the labeled taste tests the same
individuals perceive brand 2 to have increased tremen-
dously in its factor l content and to have a very
substantial advantage over the subject brand on this
taste dimension.
This powerful image influence makes it very difficult
for another brand having a stronger factor l taste
component to attract group 9 members. In those
instances in which a group 9 individual actually tries
another brand, the comparison in terms of the desired
taste factor l seems to be between the true factor
l level of the rival brand and the image-influenced
factor l perception of brand 2. The intense concentra-
tion of the factor l taste component that a rival brand
must place into its beverage to attract group 9 members
could have major negative effects on other important
market segments.
Research findings from other projects conducted
by the firm's market research department suggest one
possible approach for a market segment in which image
is positively influencing the individual's perception
of the product attribute values. The data used in this
study were all obtained by monetic testing, i.e.,
individuals rated one brand at a time. In other projects
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1978
using difference tests, designs in which two or three
brands are compared directly, the influence of image
has been found to be minimal. See [ l, Chapter 6]
for a discussion of the various types of comparative
tests as they relate to food testing. This result suggests
an advertising campaign depicting and encouraging
direct comparison as a method of rating the beverage.
The key to this approach is to get group 9 individuals
to make a paired comparison rather than two monetic
tests.
The marketing implications suggested are probably
very different from those suggested by a positioning
segmentation study based solely on either the mea-
surement or the image perception space. The latter
would indicate little potential for penetration because
brand 2 and ideal point ratings would be very close.
The former would underestimate the difficulty of
penetrating group 9, revealing only a significant dif-
ference between ideal point and brand 2 rating, without
warning a marketer of the perceptual screening or
image influence.
CONCLUSIONS
The study findings suggest that when market seg-
mentation is performed before positioning a product,
an important relationship that should be explored is
the possible influence of image on current perceptions
and preferences. This influence is especially relevant
if the product attributes are difficult to measure
objectively. An important general finding of this study
is that if the subjective judgments provided by con-
sumers are consistent, the influence of image on
perception can be measured empirically.
The empirical results indicate two forms of image-
measurement segmentation. First, image or promotion
can create a gap between expectations and actual
perception. This gap is most likely to occur with
individuals who are not current users of the product.
Individuals probably select trial brands by image. If
expectations substantially exceed the actual product
perception, dissonance is assumed to occur. Thus
brands with this gap may be high trial/low repeat
purchase brands. This type of image-measurement
segmentation may provide useful insights and a more
realistic method of estimating parameters in brand
switching models [4]. If this gap exists for a segment
of current users of a brand, the situation may be
viewed as a marketing opportunity for rival brands.
If the difference between expectations and actual
perceptions can be exploited by a rival brand, the
segment may be penetrated successfully by the rival.
A second form of image-measurement segmentation
involves measuring the degree to which image actually
distorts or influences actual product perception. The
empirical results indicate that the influence of image
on perception can be measured. Knowledge of seg-
ments in which the image is strong enough to modify
the direct measurement of the product attributes
IMAGE-MEASUREMENT SEGMENTATION 393

provides insights for evaluating the feasibility of behind the use of rotations of the loadings matrix
various positioning strategies. to "simple structure" (e.g., by application of the
varimax criterion) (14]. As a consequence of this
APPENDIX A rotational invariance, two factor loadings matrices
CONSISTENCY CHECK OF RESPONDENTS' cannot be compared until their respective rotations
RATINGS are "aligned."
Correlation coefficients were calculated for both In the case reported, the factor loadings are similar
sets of blind taste data. In the first set, the first blind enough to indicate the presence of the same two
taste scores and the adjusted third taste scores were "latent" dimensions, and this gives some indication
correlated. The third taste scores were adjusted for of a similar alignment of the spaces. However, because
the influence of the second brand and the sequencing of the arbitrariness of the final rotations within each
effect. In the second set of blind taste tests the fourth space, a direct comparison of the relative consistency
and sixth taste test were correlated in a similar manner. of the individual attributes in terms of factor loadings
The frequency distributions of these two sets of could be very misleading until the major factors (the
correlations follow. coordinate systems) are aligned to maximum con-
Correlation distribution
gruence.
Set I Set 2 The alignment problem can be solved by finding
Correlation Density Density an orthogonal transformation matrix T, such that when
interval per interval per interval Tis applied to a given matrix A, the difference between
-1.00 to - .35 0 0 AT and a given matrix B is minimum in a least squares
-.34 to -.30 2 0 sense (4). In the present application the A and B
-.29 to -.20 7 2 matrices are factor loadings matrices, defining the
-.19 to -.10 4 6
-.09 to .0 5 6 factor spaces associated with the adjusted third unla-
.01 to .10 21 25 beled taste test from the second set and the labeled
.I I to .20 32 28 taste test. The mathematical development of this
.21 to .30 47 51 approach is provided by Schonemann (22) . In terms
.31 to .4 121 94
.41 to .50 164 142
of accessible computer programs, a slightly modified
.51 to .60 153 189 version of the standard canonical correlation program,
.61 to .70 186 168 called "canonical scalar products" (28, p.169-70)
.71 to .80 169 184 provides results that are nearly identical to the results
.81 to .90 84 98 of the rotational method described. The "canonical
.91 to 1.00 10 12
scalar products" program is recommended for the
1,005 1,005 researcher seeking easy access to a working computer
These data seem to indicate that consumers can program for factor rotations.
consistently rate taste attributes. Because the correla- After the rotation to maximum congruence, one can
tion coefficient is more sensitive to patterns than to take the two major dimensions and plot the 17 attri-
levels, one is aware that a small subset of one to butes into this two-dimensional space. In effect this
three inconsistent attributes could easily produce a type of approach enables the researcher to examine
distribution of negative to low positive correlations first the consistency of dimensions between two factor
even if the remaining attributes are consistent. spaces and then to look at the consistency of individual
On the basis of these distributions individuals were attributes within defined dimensional space.
believed to be consistently able to estimate the taste
attributes over the set of brands being tested. APPENDIX C
SIGNIFICANCE OF EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE
APPENDIX B DIFFERENCES
ROTATION TO MAXIMUM CONGRUENCE There is no standard statistical test by which one
The problem involved with a direct comparison of could estimate the significance of the euclidean dis-
the results from two separate factor analyses is that tance between attributes. However, to provide some
the values of each factor matrix are arbitrary with feel for the relevance of the various distances in Table
respect to rotation. Because two matrices (the loadings 3, a random replications test specifically structured
and the factor scores) are multiplied together to for this situation was devised. Random numbers were
produce an estimate of the original data matrix, any used to replicate the factor loadings subject to con-
orthogonal rotation can be applied to both the scores straints of the problem situation. The first constraint
and the loadings matrix and the fit with the original is that the average squared factor loading equaled
data matrix will remain the same. Thus there is no 34% in the first column and 43% in the second column.
one factor loadings matrix, but rather an entire family This constraint used up two degrees of freedom.
of matrices associated with any factor analysis solution Second, because the rotated factor loadings in both
(2, 11, 28) . Indeed, this is the motivating principle spaces tend to have the same sign, especially the more
394
important or high loading attributes, the factor loadings
in each space would be a random number between
.00 and LOO rather than the wider range of -1.00
to + l.00. Under these two constraints 25 sets of
random values were generated. The euclidean distance
for each attribute was computed along with the mean
and standard deviation of the 17 distances for each
pair. The average of the 25 means was .17 and the
average of the 25 standard deviations was .11. Because
the factors contain more structure than was placed
in the test, the author believes the mean and standard
deviation are both probably on the high side. However,
even with the upward bias, the test indicates that
euclidean distances of .4 or greater are not very likely
to occur by chance alone.
REFERENCES
I. Amerine, Maynard A., Rose Pangborn, and Edward
Roessler. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. New
York: Academic Press, 1965.
2. Bass, Frank M., Douglas J. Tigert, and Ronald T.
Lonsdale. "Market Segmentation: Group Versus Indi-
vidual Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 5
(August 1968), 264-70.
3. - - - , E. A. Pessemier, and D. R. Lehman. "An
Experimental Study of Relationships Between Atti-
tudes, Brand Preference, and Choice," Behavioral
Science, 17 (November 1972), 532-41.
4. Blattberg, Robert C. and Subrata K. Sen. "Market
Segments and Stochastic Brand Choice Models," Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 13 (February 1976), 34-45.
5. Day, George S. "Evaluating Models of Attribute Struc-
ture," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (August 1972),
279-86.
6. Day, R. L. "Preference Tests and the Management of
Product Features," Journal of Marketing, 32 (July 1968),
24-9.
7. Doyle, Peter and Ian Fenwick. "The Pitfalls of A.l.D.
Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (No-
vember 1975), 408-13.
8. Eastlack, J. 0. "Consumer Flavor Preference Factors
in Food Product Design," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, I (February 1964) 38-42.
9. Gensch, Dennis H. "Can Consumers Provide Meaning-
ful Data on Their Perception. of Beverage Tastes?"
Working Paper 2-28-77, School of Business, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
10. - - - and Thomas F. Golob. "Testing the Consistency
of Attribute Meaning in Empirical Concept Testing,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (August 1975), 348-54.
II. Harmon, H. Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1960.
12. Jacoby, Jacob, J.C. Olson, and R. A. Haddock. "Price,
Brand Name and Product Composition Characteristics
in Determinants of Perceived Quality," Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 55 (1971), 577.
13. Johnson, Richard M. "On a Theorem by Eckart and
Young," Psychometrika, 28 (September 1963), 259-63.
14. Kaiser, H. F. "The Varimax Criterion for Analytic
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1978
Rotation in Factor Analysis," Psychometrika, 23 (Sep-
tember 1958), 187-200.
15. Lehmann, D.R. "Television Show Preference: Applica-
tion of a Choice Model," Journal of Marketing Research,
8 (February 1971), 47-55.
16. Miller, G. A. "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or
Minus Two," Psychological Review, 63 (January 1956),
81-97.
17. Morgan, N. and J. Purnell. "Isolating Openings for New
Products in a Multi-Dimensional Space," Journal of the
Marketing Research Society, 11 (July 1969) 245-66.
18. Newell, Allen, John C. Shaw, and Herbert A. Simon.
"Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving,"
Psychological Review, 65 (March 1958), 151-66.
19. Pekelman, Dov and Subrata Sen. "Mathematical Pro-
gramming Models for the Determination of Attribute
Weights," Management Science, 20 (April 1974), 1217-
29. .
20. Pessemier, E. A., P. Burger, R. Teach, and D. Tigert.
"Using Laboratory Brand Preference Scales to Predict
Consumer Brand Purchases," Management Science, 17
(February 1971), 371-85.
21. Roberts, Mary Lou and James R. Taylor. "Analyzing
Proximity Judgments in an Experimental Design," Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 12 (February 1975) 68-72.
22. Schonemann, Peter H. "A Generalized Solution of the
Orthogonal Procrustes Problem," Psychometrika, 31
(March 1966), l-10.
23. Shepard, R. N. "On Subjectively Optimum Selection
Among Multiattribute Alternatives," in M. W. Shelly
and G. L. Bryan, eds., Human Judgments and Optima-
lity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964, 257-81.
24. Shocker, Allen D. and V. Srinivasan. "A Consumer-
Based Methodology for the Identification of New Prod-
uct Ideas," Management Science, 20 (February 1974),
921-37.
25. Slovic, P. and S. Lichtenstein. "Comparison of Bayesian
and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information
Processing in Judgment," Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 6 (November 1971), 649-744.
26. Sonquist, John A., Elizabeth L. Baker, and James N.
Morgan. Searching for Structure. Ann Arbor: Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan, 1973.
27. Srinivasan, V. and A. D. Shocker. "Linear Programming
Techniques for Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Prefer-
ences," Psychometrika, 38 (September 1973).
28. Van de Geer, John P. Introduction to Multivariate
Analysis for the Social Sciences. San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman, 1971.
29. Wheatley, John J. and John S. Y. Chiu. "The Effects
of Price, Store Image, and Product and Respondent
Characteristics on Perceptions of Quality," Journal of
Marketing Research, 14 (May 1977), 181-6.
30. Wilkie, W. L. and J. M. Mccann. "The Halo Effect
and Related Issues in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models-
An Experiment," unpublished working paper, Krannert
Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue
University.
31. - - - and E. A. Pessemier. "Issues in Marketing's
Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models," Journal of
Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 428.