Skills

Audit a Real Brand's Market Position

6 weeks · 0 milestones

Conduct a rigorous audit of a real brand's market position — covering brand positioning, visual identity, messaging consistency, customer perception, and competitive differentiation — and produce a written audit document identifying specific gaps between the intended and actual brand experience. The audit must address a real named brand using real evidence (public materials, customer reviews, competitor positioning). Proof requires submission to and review by a marketing professional who can confirm the assessment is analytically grounded rather than opinion-based.

Part of: Business & Management · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Conduct Brand Equity Assessment Using a Published Framework

2–3 weeks

Select a real brand (not your own employer without access to internal data) and conduct a brand equity assessment using a published framework — Keller's Brand Equity model (brand awareness, associations, quality perceptions, brand loyalty) or Aaker's Brand Equity model. Collect data from publicly available sources: customer reviews, social media sentiment, analyst reports, survey data, and competitive positioning.

Proof required

Submit: (a) a data collection inventory listing all publicly available sources used (minimum five distinct sources), (b) brand equity assessment structured by the chosen framework's dimensions with specific evidence for each dimension — not assertions without evidence, and (c) a brief explanation of why the chosen framework is appropriate for this brand and market.

What gets checked

At least five distinct public sources used — not five pages from the same source
Each framework dimension is supported by specific evidence, not general claims
Framework choice is justified with reference to the brand and market type

Common mistakes

Brand equity assessment based primarily on the submitter's personal opinion rather than evidence
Using a textbook example brand rather than conducting original analysis

Powstik Guide

A brand equity assessment using a published framework.

Steps

Pick one published framework.
Collect at least five public sources.
Score the brand on each dimension.
Cite a source for each score.

Template

Brand:        Framework:
Sources (5+):
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Source |
|-----------|-------|----------|--------|

What gets sent back

Fewer than five sources.
No named framework.
Scores without evidence.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge one of the evidence claims: 'You assessed brand quality perceptions as high — what specific evidence supports this beyond the company's own marketing?' The answer reveals whether the assessment is evidence-based.
Is the framework applied correctly? Keller's brand resonance model has a specific hierarchy — check that the submitter understands what each level requires before achieving the next.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce the Full Brand Audit Report

3–4 weeks

Produce a comprehensive brand audit report covering: competitive brand positioning map, brand association analysis, brand communication audit (messaging consistency across channels), and identification of the top two or three brand equity gaps with evidence. The report must conclude with prioritised recommendations.

Proof required

Submit a brand audit report (minimum 2,000 words) covering: (a) competitive brand positioning map with at least four named competitors on two identified positioning dimensions with rationale, (b) brand association analysis showing the brand's actual associations versus its intended positioning, (c) communication audit finding consistency or gaps across at least three channels, and (d) the top three brand equity gaps with specific evidence and prioritised recommendations.

What gets checked

Positioning map uses real evidence to place competitors — not assumed positions
Brand association analysis distinguishes actual from intended associations
Recommendations are prioritised with rationale — not a flat list

Common mistakes

Positioning map created without evidence for competitor placement
Report describes what the brand does without assessing what the data reveals about brand equity strengths and gaps

Powstik Guide

A brand audit report with evidence behind every claim.

Steps

Choose two positioning axes customers actually care about.
Place four competitors using evidence: prices, reviews, ads.
Collect real customer words from reviews and social posts.
Compare those words with the brand's stated positioning.
Check the message on three channels for consistency.
Rank the top three equity gaps and what to do first.

Template

Evidence table
| Competitor | Axis 1 value + source | Axis 2 value + source |
|------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|

Intended vs actual associations
| Brand says | Customers say (quote + source) | Gap? |
|------------|--------------------------------|------|

Channel check: website / social / packaging or ads — consistent? notes

What gets sent back

Competitors placed on the map without evidence.
Associations taken from the brand's own marketing copy.
A flat list of recommendations with no priority.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the competitive positioning map: can the submitter defend the placement of each competitor? 'Why did you position Brand X at low quality/premium price rather than mid-quality/mid-price?' requires specific evidence.
Check whether the brand association analysis goes beyond what the brand says about itself — customer associations are the key input, not marketing copy.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present and Defend the Brand Audit to a Marketing Professional

1 week

Present the brand audit to a marketing professional (brand manager, CMO, marketing consultant, or marketing academic) who will challenge at least two of your competitive positioning assessments or recommendations. Document the challenges and your responses.

Proof required

Submit: (a) a Q&A log from the review session (minimum 300 words with at least two challenges and your responses), and (b) attendance record with reviewer name, credentials, and date.

What gets checked

Reviewer has brand or marketing expertise — not just general business background
Q&A log shows challenges to specific assessments, not just questions about methodology
Your responses demonstrate reasoning with the evidence, not just defending the original position

Common mistakes

Reviewer confirms everything without challenge
Responses to challenges repeat the original claims without engaging with the challenge

Powstik Guide

A brand audit defended in front of a marketing professional.

Steps

Send the report two days before the session.
Prepare the sources behind each competitor placement.
Book a brand manager, marketer or marketing academic.
Ask them to challenge your two weakest conclusions.
Log each challenge and how your answer held up.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a positioning or gap claim):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

A reviewer who agreed with everything.
Answers that repeat the report instead of engaging the challenge.
A reviewer without brand or marketing expertise.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Your most useful challenges probe the gap analysis: 'You identified brand awareness as the primary equity gap — but the data shows strong social media followership. Walk me through how you reconcile those two observations.'
Provide a written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your marketing credentials and the challenges you raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Marketing Management Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Conduct Brand Equity Assessment Using a Published Framework

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

At least five distinct public sources used — not five pages from the same source
Each framework dimension is supported by specific evidence, not general claims
Framework choice is justified with reference to the brand and market type

Common mistakes

Brand equity assessment based primarily on the submitter's personal opinion rather than evidence
Using a textbook example brand rather than conducting original analysis

Powstik Guide

A brand equity assessment using a published framework.

Steps

Pick one published framework.
Collect at least five public sources.
Score the brand on each dimension.
Cite a source for each score.

Template

Brand:        Framework:
Sources (5+):
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Source |
|-----------|-------|----------|--------|

What gets sent back

Fewer than five sources.
No named framework.
Scores without evidence.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Challenge one of the evidence claims: 'You assessed brand quality perceptions as high — what specific evidence supports this beyond the company's own marketing?' The answer reveals whether the assessment is evidence-based.
Is the framework applied correctly? Keller's brand resonance model has a specific hierarchy — check that the submitter understands what each level requires before achieving the next.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce the Full Brand Audit Report

3–4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Positioning map uses real evidence to place competitors — not assumed positions
Brand association analysis distinguishes actual from intended associations
Recommendations are prioritised with rationale — not a flat list

Common mistakes

Positioning map created without evidence for competitor placement
Report describes what the brand does without assessing what the data reveals about brand equity strengths and gaps

Powstik Guide

A brand audit report with evidence behind every claim.

Steps

Choose two positioning axes customers actually care about.
Place four competitors using evidence: prices, reviews, ads.
Collect real customer words from reviews and social posts.
Compare those words with the brand's stated positioning.
Check the message on three channels for consistency.
Rank the top three equity gaps and what to do first.

Template

Evidence table
| Competitor | Axis 1 value + source | Axis 2 value + source |
|------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|

Intended vs actual associations
| Brand says | Customers say (quote + source) | Gap? |
|------------|--------------------------------|------|

Channel check: website / social / packaging or ads — consistent? notes

What gets sent back

Competitors placed on the map without evidence.
Associations taken from the brand's own marketing copy.
A flat list of recommendations with no priority.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the competitive positioning map: can the submitter defend the placement of each competitor? 'Why did you position Brand X at low quality/premium price rather than mid-quality/mid-price?' requires specific evidence.
Check whether the brand association analysis goes beyond what the brand says about itself — customer associations are the key input, not marketing copy.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present and Defend the Brand Audit to a Marketing Professional

1 week

Proof required

Submit: (a) a Q&A log from the review session (minimum 300 words with at least two challenges and your responses), and (b) attendance record with reviewer name, credentials, and date.

What gets checked

Reviewer has brand or marketing expertise — not just general business background
Q&A log shows challenges to specific assessments, not just questions about methodology
Your responses demonstrate reasoning with the evidence, not just defending the original position

Common mistakes

Reviewer confirms everything without challenge
Responses to challenges repeat the original claims without engaging with the challenge

Powstik Guide

A brand audit defended in front of a marketing professional.

Steps

Send the report two days before the session.
Prepare the sources behind each competitor placement.
Book a brand manager, marketer or marketing academic.
Ask them to challenge your two weakest conclusions.
Log each challenge and how your answer held up.

Template

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a positioning or gap claim):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

A reviewer who agreed with everything.
Answers that repeat the report instead of engaging the challenge.
A reviewer without brand or marketing expertise.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Your most useful challenges probe the gap analysis: 'You identified brand awareness as the primary equity gap — but the data shows strong social media followership. Walk me through how you reconcile those two observations.'
Provide a written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your marketing credentials and the challenges you raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.