Associative value proposition: meaning and application

You offer better service than your competitor, yet customers still expect you to be more expensive and to keep them waiting. Repeating that your service is good will not remove that existing expectation. This article explains what Neurofactor means by an associative value proposition, how to build one from association data and how to test it.

An associative value proposition is a Neurofactor working concept for a proposition built on researched associations of a target group that uses evidence to adjust which associations are activated in a choice.

The starting point is an existing expectation that stands in the way of the choice, alongside a reason to choose. It is a working definition, not an established term. Research on value propositions, brand associations and associative networks provides context but does not validate it. Whether a proposition works is something you test.

In marketing, a proposition is the core of what a provider promises a target group and why it matters. An association is a link between a subject and a meaning, feeling or image; see Association: meaning and application.

Neurofactor working definition: an associative value proposition is a proposition built on researched associations of a defined target group that uses evidence to adjust which associations are activated in a specific choice.

Three components set it apart from an ordinary proposition:

• Researched associations as the starting point. You rely on the target group's measured associations in a specific choice context, with their strength, valence and salience, not on what the provider considers important.
• An existing expectation as the target. The proposition selects one association or expectation that currently colours the choice unfavourably and describes the adjustment needed.
• Evidence as the carrier. The proposition names the evidence that makes the adjustment credible, and the organisation must be able to deliver it.

The starting point is therefore correcting as well as motivating. A motivating proposition offers a reason to choose. An associative one first asks which expectation people already hold and why it holds the choice back.

Four lines of research help to place the concept. None of them has studied it directly.

Value proposition

The term is usually traced back to a 1988 McKinsey staff paper by Michael Lanning and Edward Michaels (Lanning & Michaels, 1988). A later adapted version describes a value proposition as a clear, simple statement of the tangible and intangible benefits a company provides, along with the approximate price it charges each customer segment (Golub et al., 2000). Reviewing the field, Payne, Frow and Eggert argue that the customer value proposition is critical in communicating how a company aims to provide value, yet remains poorly understood and lacks a strong theoretical foundation; they also distinguish it from related concepts (Payne, Frow & Eggert, 2017).

Brand associations and positioning

Keller describes brand knowledge as brand awareness plus brand image: the associations people hold in memory about a brand. He distinguishes associations by favourability, strength and uniqueness, and links the essence of positioning to a sustainable competitive advantage that offers a compelling reason to choose a brand (Keller, 1993). An associative value proposition applies this idea that associations carry meaning to one choice and one expectation.

Associative networks

Collins and Loftus described semantic memory as a network of linked concepts. When a concept is processed, activation spreads along the links, decreasing as links get weaker and time passes (Collins & Loftus, 1975). This model helps to explain why 'bike shop' quickly brings other meanings to mind, but it does not say which communication changes those links.

Adjusting expectations

Theories of predictive processing describe the brain as continuously comparing incoming information with expectations. Differences between the two can lead to an update of the underlying model. Clark notes, however, that direct neuroscientific testing of this model is still in its infancy and the best current evidence tends to be indirect (Clark, 2013). For the proposition, this is a frame of thought: evidence that departs from an existing expectation may contribute to adjusting it. It is not a demonstrated mechanism for communication effects.

How product promise, value proposition and slogan differ is explained in What is a product promise?. In short: the product promise states what a customer receives; the associative value proposition states which expectation you want to adjust with that promise and its evidence. Three related working concepts take the proposition further: claim, evidence, clarification and language anchors describe how you write out one promise, an evidence anchor is the piece of evidence itself, and a message matrix lists the messages per target group.

1. Define the choice context. Which choice, by whom, when and against which alternatives?
2. Map the associations. Describe strength, valence and salience for each association, with the measurement method; see How do you measure associations?.
3. Look for associations that hold the choice back. Three patterns are often useful: a strong negative association that comes to mind quickly, such as 'expensive'; a neutral association where the choice needs a positive one, such as 'just a shop' where 'expert' would help; and a lingering doubt. By this we mean an unvoiced uncertainty that still delays the choice. A voiced objection differs; see What are objections in a target group profile?.
4. Choose one expectation to adjust. Weigh the association's strength, its importance for the choice and whether the organisation can live up to the adjustment.
5. Describe the desired adjustment and the evidence. Which association should become stronger or weaker, and which verifiable evidence makes that credible?
6. Write the proposition as a working sentence. For instance: "For [target group] who expect [existing association] when [choice], we show with [evidence] that [adjusted expectation]." The working sentence is an internal tool, not advertising copy.

In this article, 'lingering doubt' is an editorial term, not a measured construct.

The proposition is a hypothesis about what evidence can do to an expectation. From target group insights to testable messages explains how to formulate a communication hypothesis, compare variants and define outcome measures in advance. For an associative value proposition, add two questions:

• Does the target association shift? Measure associations with the same method before and after exposure, or compare a group that sees the proposition with one that sees another variant.
• Does the shift matter for the choice? Decide in advance which choice or intention measure to use. A different association without different choice behaviour is a limited outcome.

Keep a measured effect and an explanation apart. More appointments for a variant do not yet prove that an expectation in memory has been adjusted.

This example is fictional and has no research results.

Situation. A bicycle shop with two stores in one region sees people looking for a new electric bike increasingly buying online. The owner wants to stand out from online retailers.

Choice question. Which expectation keeps people from buying here, and which proposition could adjust it?

Available information. An exploratory association measurement among buyers shows three patterns. 'Bike shop' quickly brings up 'more expensive' and 'waiting for repairs'. 'Advice' is a neutral association without clear added value. And for online retailers there is a lingering doubt: what if something breaks after a few months?

Suitable approach. The team chooses 'a bike shop is more expensive' as the target, because that expectation is strong and directly affects the choice. The working sentence: "For people looking for an electric bike who expect a local bike shop to be more expensive, we show with a comparison of total costs over the first years, including maintenance and repairs, what they actually pay." The comparison must be fair, verifiable and current. The team keeps the doubt about repairs of bikes bought online for a later test.

Possible interpretation. If 'more expensive' shifts in a follow-up measurement and test-ride appointments rise compared with a general service variant, that supports the proposition for this group. If the association stays the same, the evidence may lack credibility or visibility, or price may not be the real barrier for this group.

Next step. Compare two variants on predefined measures, such as price associations and test-ride appointments.

• Starting from the offer. A list of strengths is not yet an associative value proposition; the starting point is the target group's expectation.
• Motivating where correction is needed. An extra reason to choose does little while a strong negative expectation remains.
• Promising evidence that does not exist. A proposition the organisation fails to deliver can confirm a negative expectation instead.
• Adjusting everything at once. With five expectations at once, you cannot tell which evidence did what.
• Presenting the working concept as a proven mechanism. A proposition does not rewire 'the brain'. It may contribute to a different weighing in a choice, which is testable.
• Applying group results to individuals. A shift in a group average does not mean everyone has adjusted their expectation.

An associative value proposition is a Neurofactor working concept for a proposition that starts from researched associations and uses evidence to adjust an existing expectation in a choice. It determines what you promise and why, and precedes the product promise, core message and slogan. The literature provides context but does not prove that a proposition works. Choose one expectation, make sure the evidence holds up and test against predefined outcome measures whether the association and the choice shift.