Brand Positioning By Wednesday, March 26, 2014 Submit Your R

Brand Positioningbywednesday March 26 2014 Submit Your Response To

Compare and contrast the brand positioning of Subway and McDonalds. What type of image does each restaurant chain try to project? Before the end of the module, comment on at least two of your peers’ responses. Be objective, clear, and concise, offering appropriate constructive remarks.

All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The brand positioning strategies of Subway and McDonald's reflect their distinct target markets, brand identities, and overall market strategies. While both are global fast-food giants, their approaches to brand image and consumer perception diverge significantly, shaping how each chain is viewed by the public.

Subway primarily positions itself as a healthier, more nutritious alternative to traditional fast food. Its brand image emphasizes fresh ingredients, low-fat options, and customization, appealing to health-conscious consumers. The use of the tagline “Eat Fresh” encapsulates this positioning, suggesting a focus on quality, wellness, and individualized meals (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Subway’s retail outlets are designed to evoke a sense of freshness and transparency, often showcasing ingredients and emphasizing their commitment to healthier eating options (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2016). This positioning strategy targets consumers who seek convenience without compromising their health goals, and it aligns with the broader trend of health awareness influencing consumer behavior.

In contrast, McDonald's positions itself as a convenient, affordable, and family-friendly brand. Its image emphasizes consistency, speed, and value, catering to a broad demographic that includes busy families, students, and travelers. The brand’s iconic golden arches symbolize familiarity and dependability, creating a sense of trust and comfort among its customers (Aaker, 1996). McDonald's marketing campaigns often highlight the fun, joyful experiences associated with its products, such as children enjoying Happy Meals or groups gathering at the restaurant. Its global branding emphasizes accessibility and a quick-service experience while maintaining standardized quality across locations (Kotler & Keller, 2016).

While Subway’s image emphasizes health and customization, McDonald's projects an image of quick, reliable, and affordable nourishment. Both brands use their positioning to target different consumer needs and lifestyles effectively. Subway appeals to health-conscious individuals seeking personalized, nutritious options, whereas McDonald's attracts consumers prioritizing convenience, affordability, and familiarity.

These contrasting brand images influence consumer perceptions and loyalty. Subway’s focus on health positioning has allowed it to capitalize on the increasing demand for healthier fast food options (Hawkes, 2008). Conversely, McDonald's enduring popularity is rooted in its emphasis on affordability and consistent service, which foster brand loyalty among a diverse customer base (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Both strategies demonstrate how different positioning can shape brand identity and competitive advantage within the fast-food industry.

In conclusion, Subway and McDonald's exemplify two distinct approaches to brand positioning—health-consciousness versus convenience and affordability. Their success signifies the importance of aligning brand image with target consumer needs, influencing perceptions, purchasing decisions, and long-term brand equity.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. Free Press.

Hawkes, C. (2008). Marketing activities that contribute to obesity: Evidence and proposals. Obesity Reviews, 9(Suppl 4), 171-180.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson Education.

Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2016). MKTG (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105-111.