A brand positioning map, or perceptual map, visually represents how an audience perceives a set of brands against two or more choice criteria. Building one means defining the decision it must support, selecting competitors and alternatives, gathering perceptual data, identifying relevant attributes, choosing the axes and interpreting distances and overlaps. The key step, then, is the choice of dimensions: after all, a map is only as good as the questions we chose to observe the market with.
Within a Brand Strategy, the map serves to make the competitive terrain visible before choosing a position. In doing so, it helps management understand where the market already places brands and which spaces merit further verification.
In short, the chart is the last part of the work. If the axes were chosen without data, the result can be highly legible and strategically useless.
Let’s look at why, and how to avoid it.
What a positioning map is
Perceptual mapping is a technique used to describe the relationship between perceptions of a brand and its alternatives within a defined landscape. In its simplest form it uses two axes, each associated with a dimension considered important to the choice, be it price, rarity or something else.
Of course, the position must be read in relation to competitors and to substitutes that meet the same need. It is also crucial that the attributes are relevant to the audience being observed.
What a positioning map is for
Management can use it to check whether the desired positioning matches the perceived one, identify overlaps with competitors, observe crowded segments or test repositioning hypotheses.
It is a particularly useful tool when very different descriptions of the same market exist within the company. From this perspective, a map forces the competitive set to be made explicit and tested against evidence.
The most important benefit, therefore, is not finding an empty quadrant. It is improving the quality of the question: against which alternatives, and on which criteria, do we want to become preferable?
Example · professional services
Perceived specialisation →
How to read it. Brand D holds the highest position on both dimensions; A is highly specialised but perceived as having little senior management involvement. The position becomes useful only if both attributes genuinely matter to the target audience and if the brand has the processes to sustain it.
How to build a positioning map in 6 steps
1. Define the decision the map needs to support
Before the axes comes a question. Do we need to know whether the brand is perceived as premium? Are we assessing entry into a category? Do we want to understand why two competitors are seen as interchangeable? Are we preparing a repositioning?
The question determines the audience, the competitive set and the attributes to observe. A map built “to see where we are” tends to gather too many dimensions and return few operational pointers.
2. Choose competitors and alternatives
The competitive set should not be limited to the names most similar in product terms. Customers may weigh alternatives that meet the same need in different ways.
In a B2B market, for example, a piece of software may compete with other software, with a manual process, with Excel or with the decision to change nothing. Excluding these alternatives means drawing a tidy map of a competition that the customer does not see in the same way.
3. Identify the attributes that really matter
Price and quality are widely used axes because they are easy to understand. For precisely that reason, they risk being poorly discriminating.
Attributes should come from research, reviews, interviews, customer care, query analysis, sales calls and other signals in which the audience expresses its choice criteria. The useful question is: which dimensions genuinely change preference between the alternatives?
In many markets, more specific pairs emerge: standardisation/customisation, speed/control, prestige/accessibility, specialisation/breadth, innovation/reliability.
4. Gather perceptual data
The perceptual map should be based on the perceptions of the people we want to understand. Surveys and quantitative research make it possible to ask for ratings of brands and attributes; methods such as multidimensional scaling can derive perceptual structures from judgements of similarity or dissimilarity.
For preliminary analysis, qualitative and digital sources can also be used, provided they are treated as signals and not as automatic substitutes for market perception.
5. Choose the axes
This is where it gets most delicate. The axes must be independent enough to add information and relevant enough to change the choice. Correlated axes, in fact, risk telling the same story twice. Axes chosen because they make the brand look visually isolated, on the other hand, risk turning the analysis into a justification.
6. Interpret distances, gaps and movements
The distance between two brands suggests greater or lesser perceptual proximity within the model used. An empty area indicates that none of the brands observed is placed there.
That gap is not yet an opportunity. There may be no demand, it may be economically impossible to hold, or the brand may lack the credibility to occupy it.
Interpretation must therefore combine three questions: does the audience want that position? Can the company sustain it? Would the advantage be defensible?
The most dangerous mistake: choosing the axes after seeing the result
A map can be redrawn until the brand appears in the desired quadrant. All it takes is changing competitors, attributes or scales.
To avoid this, it is best to set the selection criteria first: (i) why these brands, (ii) why these attributes, (iii) which audience and (iv) which decision. Documenting these choices makes it harder to adapt the analysis after the fact.
The map should increase uncertainty where the company was too sure of itself and reduce it where there were too many assumptions. If it always confirms what management already thought, it may have been built in too self-referential a way.
Perceptual maps and internal competitive maps are two different things
Many companies draw maps during internal workshops and call them perceptual maps. They can be useful tools, but they represent management’s hypothesis, not necessarily the market’s perception.
| Map type | Source | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Internal map | Management, workshops, desk research | Formulating hypotheses |
| Perceptual map | Target, customers, surveys, research | Measuring perceptions |
| Competitive data map | Prices, features, distribution, performance | Describe observable characteristics |
The three can be compared. It is precisely the gap between how the company sees itself, how the market perceives it and how the offer is structured that can bring the positioning problem to light.
Bliss case study: Risivi&Co., finding a position in urban jewellery
When our collaboration with Risivi&Co. began, the brand operated in a recognisable market but did not yet hold a sufficiently defined position in the competitive landscape of urban jewellery. The activities were there, as were valuable collaborations: all that was missing was a guiding hand capable of connecting identity, product, communication and distribution.
The first phase of the project was therefore devoted to competitive analysis and positioning: understanding which territories were already occupied, which codes characterised the category and which space the brand could make credible through product, imagery and relationships with the music scene.
That reading gave rise to the go-to-market strategy. The project then led to an integrated system spanning identity, content and distribution, more than nine notable collaborations and over 15,000 followers.
An interesting case that shows the most useful function of a positioning map: making the market legible before choosing where to place the brand within it. This is because the space identified only gains value when the organisation has what it needs to occupy and defend it.
A simple example of a positioning map
Imagine a professional services market in which research has identified two genuinely relevant criteria: degree of specialisation and level of senior management involvement.
| Brand | Perceived specialisation (1-10) | Perceived senior involvement (1-10) |
| A | 9 | 3 |
| B | 6 | 8 |
| C | 4 | 5 |
| D | 8 | 8 |
Brand D would occupy a position perceived as highly specialised and with high senior involvement. This reading becomes strategically useful only if we know that both attributes matter to the target and that Brand D has processes capable of sustaining the promise.
The map makes a position visible. Strategy decides whether it is worth defending.
When to update a positioning map
The map should be revisited when competitors, category, audience, pricing, offering or perception signals change. The entry of new players can shift category standards; a technology can make irrelevant an attribute that once set brands apart.
A repositioning also requires measurement over time. The gap between desired and perceived position shows whether market and communications are genuinely moving in the intended direction.
The map is therefore less useful as a poster and more useful as a snapshot that can be compared over time.
The best map may also contradict the strategy
This is the most interesting outcome.
If management considers the brand premium and the market places it close to mainstream players, the map has produced a useful problem. If the company believes it competes on innovation and the target chooses it for reliability, strategy must decide whether to shift the perception or capitalise on the existing association.
The purpose of the map is not to make positioning look elegant. It is to make visible the gap between what the company wants to stand for and what the market actually recognises.
What data to use when you do not yet have a survey
Structured perceptual research remains the most solid source when the project calls for major decisions. In exploratory phases, however, a company can build an initial hypothesis using reviews, search queries, sales conversations, customer care, social listening, pricing, competitor content and stated reasons for winning or losing a sale.
These signals should not be turned directly into a definitive perceptual map. They serve to formulate hypotheses about the attributes to test and the competitive set. The greatest risk is confusing what competitors claim with what the audience perceives.
The most robust sequence is therefore desk research → hypotheses → audience research → map. This way, digital data speeds up the work without replacing perceptual verification.
Find out how to proceed
On which axes is the market really measuring you?
Pin down the right criteria for judging your brand: against which alternatives must your organisation come out as preferable? This choice must be made before collecting data, not after seeing the chart.
Domande frequenti
What is a brand positioning map?
It is a visual representation of the relative position of brands or products in an audience’s perception against relevant choice criteria.
How do you choose the axes of a perceptual map?
By starting from attributes that genuinely influence the target audience's choice and checking that the two dimensions add different information. Surveys, interviews, reviews and research data can help identify them.
Is an empty space on the map always an opportunity?
No. It may indicate a lack of demand, poor economic sustainability or a position that no brand has the credibility to occupy.
How many competitors should be included?
Enough to represent the set of alternatives the audience genuinely considers. The number depends on the category and on the decision the map needs to support.