To explore commercial opportunities to expand market segments by implementing a new electronic device, RIM needs to use positioning maps to find answers to its questions. Identifying the key dimensions that help generate the perception maps is an essential step toward proper positioning. The generation of such dimensions was chosen for three dimensions because it covers 91.4 percent of all data variation, as shown in Table 1.
The first dimension is the technological functionality of the device, which creates unique opportunities for use. The second dimension describes the perceived quality of the final product, that is, how satisfied users appear to be with the reliability of the product. Finally, the third dimension is the technical features of the device, which include real, tangible characteristics of the product. The question that arises, however, is how the dimensions described relate to the real variations from Table 1; in other words, how to describe each of the three dimensions.
|Variance explained||Cumulative variance|
To answer this question, it is helpful to refer to Table 2. It can be seen that the first dimension, based on coordinate calculus, is most likely described as device functionality, while the second dimension can be defined as perceived quality. In this sense, the third dimension proves to be unviable, so it was decided to reduce the number of dimensions to two so that they cover 74.6% of the variance.
|Dimension I||Dimension II||Dimension III|
|1 Most positive||Average user rating (CNET)||Voice/call quality|
|2||Value for money|
|3||Instant messaging availability|
|7||Email folders synchronization|
|9||Push email availability|
|11||Quality of display||Display size|
|12||Brand image||CNET Editor s rating||Finish|
|13||High prestige||Media quality||Camera quality|
|14 Most Negative||Comfortable to call||Speed in accessing email||Ease of use for typing|
The three segments, which were shown only in the PDF, reflect different degrees of brand loyalty. For the RIM device studied, only the first segment showed good perception (8.4), while the second (5.5) and third segments (5.6) were only moderately interested in the brand.