The Blake Project, the brand consultancy behind Branding Strategy Insider, delivers interactive brand education workshops and keynote speeches designed to align marketers on essential concepts in brand management and empower them to release the full potential of the brands they manage.
When conducting a brand audit, the simplest models often work the best – BCG’s Growth-Share matrix, a SWOT analysis, an organizational chart. These models work because they distill tons of information, identify what’s important and are easy to grasp.
Our favorite model for identifying brand strengths and weaknesses – the 3-Circle Model – is stunningly simple, too. It involves just three overlapping circles representing the brand, customers and competitors. Mapping the intersections of customer desires, brand capabilities and competitive strengths allows strategists to classify and prioritize different types of ‘value’.
Why it Works
The 3-Circle analysis is powerful in three ways:
1. Broader look at
potential differentiators
A typical brand analysis appropriately focuses most
attention on points of difference as potential sources of competitive
advantage. In addition to identifying points of difference, a 3-Circle Analysis
highlights potentially leverageable points of parity as well as unaddressed
customer needs. If these are important to customers and if no one else is
talking about them, or if your brand can talk about or deliver them uniquely, they
may be more relevant and potentially more differentiating than so-called
‘points of difference.’ Countless brands have achieved success by focusing on
category benefits (Raid Kills Bugs Dead, Lysol Kills 99.9% of germs, Foster
Farms chickens California-grown) or creating a point of difference that lies
outside of the product (Keebler Cookies are the only ones made by elves in a
hollow tree, a gecko assures Geico customers they will save money).
2. Keeps customer
needs in focus
The 3-Circle Model also provides a “final resting place” (pun
intended) for a brand’s areas of ‘non-value’ –features that may be
differentiating or important to keeping up with competitors but that are simply
unimportant to customers. The average supermarket now carries over 38,000
items, many of which are minor flavor or size variations. In the technology
category, the features arms race continues unabated. According to Harvard
professor, Youngme Moon, “There comes a point beyond which we are hard to
impress…beyond which additional improvement ceases to add value.” At that
point, it’s time to take a closer look at what customers truly value.
3. Forces clear
thinking about competitive differences
Finally, the 3-Circle Model ensures a
close look at potential points of vulnerability. The competitive landscape is
dynamic, meaning today’s advantage can be leapfrogged at any moment.
Competitive intelligence is not the same as competitive insight. Brands need to
keep a keen eye on competitors’ points of difference as well as their own, lest
they find themselves in the position of Kodak or Blockbuster, outflanked by
companies with a better sense of what customers truly want.
Putting the Model to the Test Marketing Professor Joe Urbany and former Professor James H. Davis, both of University of Notre Dame Mendoza School of Business, developed the 3-Circle Model. It has been the foundation of the Mendoza MBA marketing curriculum for over 10 years. The resulting map looks simple, but it incorporates hours of digging, discussion and debate.
To learn more about the 3-Circle Analysis and how it can be applied to brands, check out these resources:
The Brand Audit Category of Branding Strategy Insider.
How to Conduct a Brand Audit – First in a series of ‘How-To’ Whitepapers by Brand Amplitude, it describes step by step where to find the information needed to populate the 3-Circle map.
Grow by Focusing on What Matters: Strategy in 3-Circles by Joel E. Urbany and James H. Davis
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Carol Phillips and Judy Hopelain of Brand Amplitude
Sponsored By: The Brand Positioning Workshop
















I am curious as to whether the author of the article consider Points of Parity to be located in the center of the rings (as pictured above) or if they are considered to be in the overlap in both companies “non value” fields (as pictured in the linked “How-To” Whitepaper)?.
I would suggest the middle as a PoP still offers customer value but would be interested in your point of view.