Perceptual map: template, examples and how to make one

A perceptual map is a chart of how buyers see competing brands, plotted on two attributes they care about, such as value for money and quality. The key word is perceived. The positions come from what customers think, usually measured with a survey, not from what the brands claim or charge.

That is what makes it useful. The gap between where buyers put you and where you think you are is often the most valuable finding on the chart, and you cannot see it any other way.

If you want to map competitors by their own public choices instead, their prices and who their websites say they serve, build a positioning map. It is quicker and needs no survey, but it shows intent rather than perception.

What a perceptual map shows

Clusters. Brands that buyers cannot tell apart. Inside a cluster, competition drifts towards price.

Gaps. Empty space on the chart. Sometimes an opportunity, often empty because nobody wants to be there.

Distance from the ideal. If you ask buyers to rate their ideal product too, the brands nearest that point are the ones best placed to win.

Perception against reality. A brand seen as expensive that is not, or seen as basic when it is not, has a messaging problem, which is far cheaper to fix than a product problem.

What it does not show: market size (unless you size the bubbles), why buyers hold a view, or anything beyond the two dimensions you chose. For a row-by-row comparison on more than two attributes, use a competitive matrix alongside it.

How to make a perceptual map

1. Pick one market and one buyer group

"Dog owners who buy premium food online" gives a clear map. "Pet owners" gives a blur, because different buyers see the same brands differently.

2. Choose axes buyers actually decide on

Ask buyers to rank the attributes that matter when they choose, then take the top two that are not just versions of each other. Price and quality often move together, and two correlated axes give you a diagonal line rather than a map.

3. Collect perception scores

Survey people in the buyer group. First ask which brands they know, then ask them to rate each known brand from 1 to 7 on both attributes, then ask them to rate their ideal product on the same scales.

As a rule of thumb, aim for at least 30 ratings per brand, so one strong opinion cannot move a dot. Your own customer list is the cheapest source of respondents, but it is biased in your favour; a paid survey panel costs more and is fairer.

4. Plot the averages

Average each brand's score on each axis and plot them. Cross the axes at the scale midpoint (4 on a 1 to 7 scale) or at the market average, so each quadrant means above or below average. Add the ideal point.

5. Check perception against reality

Put the facts beside each dot: actual price from the pricing page, actual rating from reviews. Where perception and fact disagree, you have found something worth acting on.

Two other ways to get the data

From review language, without a survey. Count how often reviews of each brand use words for each end of each axis, per 100 reviews. It is biased towards what people find worth mentioning, but it is real buyer language and takes an afternoon. Reading competitors' reviews for positioning shows the method.

From similarity ratings. Ask buyers how similar each pair of brands is, and multidimensional scaling places the brands so the distances match. You interpret the axes afterwards, so you never impose your own. It needs statistics software and more respondents.

Perceptual map template

Fill in the data table first. The chart is the last step, not the first.

Then sketch the grid, or paste the table into a scatter chart:

          [Y axis: high]
                |
                |
[X: low] -------+------- [X: high]
                |
                |
          [Y axis: low]

Perceptual map examples

Example 1: premium dog food, from a survey

Say 180 owners who buy premium dog food online rate five hypothetical brands they know, plus their ideal, on value for money and natural ingredients. All brands and figures are invented.

Sketched, with positions rounded to the nearest point (W Wildpaw, H Hearth & Hound, B Barkwell, S supermarket, K Kibble King, * ideal):

Natural
 7 |
 6 |         W   H   *
 5 |
 4 |                 B
 3 |                 S   K
 2 |
 1 +----------------------------
     1   2   3   4   5   6   7
          Value for money

What it says:

• Nobody sits near the ideal. Buyers want natural food at fair value. The natural brands are seen as poor value; the value brands are not seen as natural.
• Wildpaw has a perception problem, not a price problem. It is rated a full point worse on value than Hearth & Hound, yet costs only about 10% more per kg. Showing cost per day for a typical dog would close more of that gap than a price cut.
• Barkwell is closest to the ideal on value. A credible natural range from Barkwell is the biggest threat to everyone else on the chart.

The empty space near the ideal is a real gap because buyers put their ideal there. That is the difference between a gap on a perceptual map and a gap you spotted yourself.

Example 2: project management tools, from review language

Four hypothetical tools, 200 recent reviews each. Count the reviews that praise ease ("easy", "simple", "intuitive") and those that praise depth ("powerful", "handles complex projects", "customisable").

Tool A is seen as easy and light, Tool B as powerful but harder, Tool D as both. Tool C is the warning: buyers do not strongly associate it with anything, which is the weakest place on any perceptual map. Read before you count, too: "complex" can be praise or a complaint, and only the context tells you which.

The trap: axes nobody buys on

Say a skincare brand maps rivals on "sustainable packaging" and "premium" and finds the top right corner empty. It looks like a gap. Then the buyer survey ranks packaging seventh of eight attributes. The corner is empty because buyers do not choose on it.

Before you trust an axis, check three things:

1. Is it in buyers' top three reasons for choosing?
2. Do buyers use the words unprompted in reviews?
3. Does any competitor charge more for it and still win?

If the answer to all three is no, change the axis. A beautiful map on the wrong dimensions leads to a confident repositioning that nobody notices.

Perceptual map vs positioning map

Both feed the same decision, your competitive positioning. Run the positioning map first because it is free, then use a perceptual map to check whether buyers see what the brands intend.

For step 5's reality check, Figo records each tracked competitor's published pricing and Google and Trustpilot ratings every week. Ours, so judge accordingly. It does not run surveys or measure perception; that part needs buyers.