Is your next generation product being positioned using a last generation process?

While the premise/promise/proof (PPP) approach to brand positioning development is well known and still commonly used, it does not allow brands to garner the full benefits of a true storytelling approach. Whether its use is related more to tradition, habit, and inertia or to a lack of confidence in a team’s ability to craft a compelling evidence-based story for their brand, the PPP process ultimately does not result in optimal positioning.

For those of you not familiar with this process, the basic components of the PPP approach are as follows:

  1. Premise – Start by identify the problem that exists in the marketplace and how it affects the lives of patients and treaters?
  2. Promise – Determine what our product offers to uniquely solve the problem, and why it matters?
  3. Proof – Outline the key evidence that would make customers believe that our product can make good on our promise?

Sometimes these elements are aligned to create more cohesive story outlines, but often a variety of premises, promises, and proofs are mixed and matched to create 4 to 6 positioning concepts for testing purposes.

The key challenges with the Premise/Promise/Proof approach are:

  • Starting with the Premise – given that pharmaceutical/biotechnology product attributes are fixed, unlike consumer goods, a significant market need very likely will not link back to a clear and impactful brand benefit
  • Lack of Narrative Anchor – because the goal of this approach is to best address the identified market need, any resulting narrative usually consists of a bundle of facts and benefits vs. a cohesive positioning idea
  • Overly Emotional Promise – too often the promise exploration is rooted in emotion first (e.g., hope, freedom, confidence, empowerment, etc.) versus exploring the promise of a highly impactful functional benefit that will ultimately lead to an emotional connection with the customers over time
  • Proof Not Rooted in Regulatory Reality – frequently the proof points provided are high-level aspirational claims with little to no clinical data, and these claims are articulated with superlative language that can almost never be communicated promotionally

These development challenges are further exacerbated during market research.

  • Mix & Match Approach – Lack of an anchor or central idea invites, either by moderator or research participant, the mixing and matching of a variety of premises, promises, and proof points based on preference that don’t ultimately result in a cohesive brand story
  • Micro vs. Macro Focus – Focus on individual elements driven by this approach leads physicians and patients to focus more on wordsmithing and individual claims or data points vs. an overarching idea for your brand
  • Lack of Positive Tension – the optimization phase of the research results in a physician or patient recommended output based on preference or area of highest need. This approach fails to create the positive tension necessary to challenge customer’s current beliefs and behaviors.

To truly optimize your positioning development process, you and your team must move beyond premise/promise/proof and embrace a true storytelling approach. We, as marketers, are responsible for writing the best, most compelling brand stories for our customers to evaluate. Not the other way around.