BUSI 520 Week 5 MMGP: Positioning/Competition/Branding Example

Marketing Management Group Project, Positioning, Competition and Branding: Liquid Death

Questions Addressed

• How is the product positioned, and against which competitors?
• Who are its main competitors, and which pose the greatest threat?
• How is the brand built, and what risks does it face?

Positioning

For Kotler and Keller (2016), positioning means shaping what a company sells and how it is seen so that target buyers hold a clear, separate picture of it, and the work starts by choosing the competitive frame of reference. Liquid Death's frame is deliberately broad. On a supermarket shelf it competes with other waters, but at a concert or a bar it competes with beer, hard seltzer and energy drinks, and its tallboy can is designed for that second frame.

A simple perceptual map helps show the position. If one axis runs from refined to rebellious and the other from functional to social, most premium waters sit in the refined, functional corner, energy drinks in the rebellious, functional corner and beer in the rebellious, social corner. Liquid Death has placed itself near beer on both axes while remaining water, a combination no other major water brand occupies. The empty space around it on the map is the clearest evidence that its positioning is distinctive.

Its points of parity are those any water must offer: clean taste, safety, convenient sizes and wide availability. Its points of difference are the associations no other water brand owns, irreverent humor, a heavy metal and punk identity, a can that looks at home in social settings and an anti-plastic message.

The group's positioning statement is: for young adults who want a drink that fits the scene without alcohol or sugar, Liquid Death is the water brand that makes drinking water feel like a statement, because it pairs plain mountain water with the attitude of the music and culture its fans love.

Competition

The group sorted Liquid Death's competitors into four sets according to how directly they compete for the target segments' purchases.

The first set is premium still waters such as Fiji and Smartwater, the latter owned by Coca-Cola. They compete for the same refrigerator case and similar prices but carry the opposite associations, purity and refinement, so they compete more for the mainstream segment than for Liquid Death's core.

The second set is sparkling waters such as LaCroix and Topo Chico, the latter also owned by Coca-Cola. They overlap with Liquid Death's sparkling and flavored lines and, like it, use cans and a distinctive look, which makes them close competitors when a buyer wants something fizzy and unsweetened.

The third set is look-alike canned waters, smaller brands that copy the tallboy can and sometimes the attitude. They threaten the brand most directly because they compete on its own points of difference, although none has matched its scale or following.

The fourth set is the drinks Liquid Death replaces in social settings: beer, hard seltzer and energy drinks. This is where the brand's growth opportunity lies, as the market analysis argued, and where its points of difference matter most.

Research on how brands grow adds a caution here. Romaniuk and Sharp (2004) argued that a brand's chance of being bought depends heavily on its salience, how readily it comes to mind in buying situations, which depends on distinctive assets that buyers recognize quickly. Liquid Death's skull and tallboy can are such assets, but a look-alike competitor that borrows them could blur the cues buyers use to pick the brand off a crowded shelf.

In the group's judgment, the greatest long-term threat is the third set combined with the first two companies' resources. If a large beverage company launched a canned water with similar attitude and its own distribution muscle, Liquid Death's points of difference would face their hardest test.

Branding

Kotler and Keller (2016) list the criteria for choosing brand elements: memorable, meaningful, likable, transferable, adaptable and protectable. Liquid Death's name scores unusually high on memorability and likability for its audience, and it is protectable, since the company applied for the trademark in 2017 (Clark, 2025). The skull logo, gothic lettering and slogan "murder your thirst" reinforce the same meaning. The brand elements are less transferable to audiences who find them off-putting, which matters as the brand reaches mainstream shoppers.

The brand's personality is easy to read. Aaker (1997) identified five dimensions of brand personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Liquid Death scores high on excitement and ruggedness and deliberately low on sophistication, which sets it apart from premium waters that stress purity and elegance. The brand's personality is the product's main point of difference, since the water itself is a point of parity.

The brand has also built a community. Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) identified three markers of a brand community: members feel a kinship with one another, they keep shared rituals and stories, and they feel obliged to help fellow members. Liquid Death's very large social media following, its merchandise and collaborations such as a makeup collection with e.l.f. Cosmetics that sold out within an hour suggest a following that treats the brand as part of its identity (Kirichanskaya, 2024).

Liquid Death's advertising often relies on shock. Dahl et al. (2003) found that shocking advertising content increased attention and memory among university students compared with fear-based and informational appeals. That finding supports the brand's approach with its core audience. The risk is that the same content may alienate older or more conservative shoppers in the mass retail channels the brand now depends on. The group's main branding recommendation is to keep the edge in content aimed at the core segments while letting the packaging, rather than the most extreme advertising, carry the brand in mainstream stores.

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304

Clark, B. (2025, July 22). MicroVentures' portfolio company: Liquid Death's history and milestones. MicroVentures. https://microventures.com/microventures-portfolio-company-liquid-death-history-and-milestones

Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268-280. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-43-3-268-280

Kirichanskaya, N. (2024, May 16). 'We are still in the early innings': Liquid Death's SVP of strategy. Inside FMCG. https://insidefmcg.com.au/2024/05/16/we-are-still-in-the-early-innings-liquid-deaths-svp-of-strategy/

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson.

Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412-432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618

Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience. Marketing Theory, 4(4), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593104047643