Conceptual Frames in Tiering
Outside perspective brings so much and can be rare in our area of work. Here’s an interesting look at language used in tiering, by our friend John Elliott, a PHD in Linguistics with a focus on Ontology, study of being (how cool is that!) He digs into the world of metaphor we often use in product and service tiering and identifies various conceptual frames to understand how they’re distinct. Here’s an excerpt:
By “concept frames”, I mean a kind of underlying mental map that we use to arrange different tiers in relation to one another – like metaphorically placing them on higher or lower shelves, or at different scenes of a story.
These underlying metaphorical structures usually operate implicitly, and guide consumer or audience perceptions of meaning even when they aren’t explicitly aware of them…
Recognizing these metaphorical foundations of names can provide some strategic clarity and new creative opportunities for your brand, helping you make sure you’re communicating the meanings and relationships you want to.
We find it thought provoking, we hope you do to. We may dive in deeper in future posts. Comment with your thoughts and questions.
John Elliott of Elliott Verbal
Tiered product or service lines are among the most common forms of product architecture found in almost any industry.
Economy, Business, or First Class. AmEx Green, Gold, and Platinum. Johnnie Walker Red, Black, Double Black, Gold, Green, Blue.
Developing names and a cohesive naming strategy for a tiered product or service line presents some unique challenges. Often, the strategic need is for names to indicate the relative value of product tiers in a way that drives consumers from lower to higher tiered products, without alienating them from the entry-level tiers to the degree that you miss sales opportunities.
Tiering Nomenclature is Typically Indirect
Sometimes, tier naming strategies are entirely descriptive of the fundamental differences between product tiers – you don’t need word-based names to label the 128, 256, and 512 GB iPhone storage options.
But such direct naming strategies are typically not viable when differences between product tiers are more complex or nuanced. It would be weird and inefficient to call the front of the plane the “big-seat-more-legroom-better-food class”.
We could resort to the basic three-way comparative distinctions found in the English language – 1. good, 2. better, 3. best; 1. strong, 2. stronger, 3. strongest... etc. But there’s a reason no one does this – it’s too direct, and it serves to undercut the perceived value of lower-tiered offerings to the consumer.
Tiering uses Embedded Metaphors
Instead, we often rely on different types of metaphorical concept frames to represent product tier relationships. By “concept frames”, I mean a kind of underlying mental map that we use to arrange different tiers in relation to one another – like metaphorically placing them on higher or lower shelves, or at different scenes of a story.
These underlying metaphorical structures usually operate implicitly, and guide consumer or audience perceptions of meaning even when they aren’t explicitly aware of them.
A Metaphorical Lense Leads to Better Strategy
By looking at concept frames, we can think more clearly about the ideas and impressions behind product names – and also consider how branding and product naming often makes use of mixed metaphors to exploit countervailing value sets. To that end, these are not mutually exclusive strategies, many tiering systems strategically mix metaphors within a single tiering set.
Recognizing these metaphorical foundations of names can provide some strategic clarity and new creative opportunities for your brand, helping you make sure you’re communicating the meanings and relationships you want to.
Each of the sections below describes a common concept frame in tiering and ends with questions to help you reflect on the strategic efficacy of your brand’s tiering nomenclature.
ELEVATION
The most common conceptual domain for expressing quality is ELEVATION, above and below.
Top quality, highest level, the apex, peak performance -- to be the best is to be the highest and above others.
Maybe this is because we start off life as short little kids and get taller with time, maybe it's because a high vantage point makes for a better defensive position against the enemy. Whatever the reason, our concept of hierarchy is most often defined by relative height. Remember, though, that on Everest, the summit is dangerous, while base camp is safe and comfortable.
Question: Are your ELEVATION metaphors making your lower-tier offerings appear more appealing by being safe and comfy? This might be more likely with products involving risk.
SIZE
SIZE or capacity is another obvious conceptual frame for hierarchy, and it’s common in product tiering because many product tiers literally differ on the basis of physical size. Obviously, you order movie theater popcorn in small, medium, and large sizes.
But something that’s really important to note: size as a measure of volume is not about absolutes, but rather the perception of relative size. Relative size is easiest to assess among items that have similar height-to-width ratios, and we tend to think of size in terms of width or girth as opposed to vertical height. This is how you get Starbucks with a 12 oz. “Tall” and a 16 oz. “Grande” – “tall” implies “skinny”.
Size can be used metaphorically, however, to signal advanced capacity to perform or improved quality – not just physical size. Think of anything great, grand, magnum, a big day, a major contribution… all words that literally suggest size as a stand in for “better quality”.
Consider the Oral B toothbrush line: the Pro 500, Pro 1000, and Pro Max. The modifiers 500, 1000, and Max are arranged in sequence and represent physical size or capacity – but none of the features that distinguish these products have anything to do with their relative physical size. They are all toothbrushes.
Question: Are the relative size metaphors used for your brand’s tiers reflecting the degree of tier differentiation you want them to? Brands often use size ordinally – just number 1, 2, 3 – when they could be directing behavior with more instructive relative differences in size metaphors.
PROTRUSION
The PROTRUSION domain is similar to ELEVATION in terms of being based on a single dimension (a line), but instead of up vs. down, it is forward vs. rear. For example, when we say that something is advanced, the core meaning is spatial and refers to being the front of a line, a forward position.
A great example is the common tier marker "Pro", like the iPhone Pro. We know that the "pro" here is short for "professional", and already that there's some metaphorical extension being made since "professional" is used as a stand in for "people who know what they are doing" – (spoiler, products labeled “Pro” are rarely intended for literal professionals).
But "pro" is much larger than that -- as a Latin prefix, it means "forward" (it's even related to other English words with f and r, like 'first' and 'fore'). You don't have to know that fact to feel intuitively that it is true, since we see that pro- prefix in words like prominence, proceed, prospect. The word "Pro" has a deeper meaning related to "being out in front, standing out", meaning that you are metaphorically leaving others behind. PROTRUSION is often used in tandem with other metaphors as part of a tiering set.
Question: Are your PROTRUSION metaphors helping your products stand out or are they so common that they help you blend in?
INTERIORITY
We also have a domain of metaphors for quality that seems to run opposite of the PROTRUSION and ELEVATION ideas -- rather than being "out in front" you want to be "in the inner circle", or rather than “superficial” you want to be “deeply involved”.
Think about the holiest of holies in the temple, the queen bee versus the workers buzzing outside the hive, or the value of having a “deeper” conversation. In all of these models, the superficial exterior is of lower value while the deep inner sanctum is where the good stuff is. INTERIORITY might also suggest greater protection and safety, which implies something is worth the resources afforded for its defense.
You can see a version of this metaphor in a lot of AI or other tech brands and offerings. The words “deep” and “depth” are often used as indicators of better quality products and solutions, and I have strong sense that “deep” as a metaphorical frame for “better” will continue to culturally diffuse out from the tech space in ways that brands outside of tech can capitalize on. This currently shows up more within product naming than in a set of tiered products, but I will be curious how this evolves.
Question: Do your brand’s INTERIORITY metaphors match your broader strategies regarding exclusivity? DEPTH might suggest abundance and something for everyone “Deep Research”, but INNER CIRCLE concepts only work if audiences believe the inner circle stays small “Admirals Club® access”.
STORY ARC
Most of the domains already discussed have a linear dimension (bottom to top, back to front, outside to inside) and they then label value tiers along that path. In all cases, the linear dimension of the metaphors relyrelies on an implied directionality, meaning that there is a start point and an end point.
It is both obvious and profound to say that the “first” of anything depends on your starting point or perspective – the words “primitive” and “progressive” both have that pr- bit that means “forward”.
So, we can metaphorically arrange tiers in different dimensions in space, but the linearity of the dimension always involves a kind of story – with a beginning, middle, and end. This story arc frame can show up in obvious ways – “beginner”, “intermediate”, “advanced” – but any tier names that involve “getting started” vs. “change” vs. “final stage” are following this same pattern. A subtle example would be Babolat Tennis racquets, which have “Boost”, “Evo”, and “Pure” tiers. This isn’t as obvious, but “Boost” suggests the impetus for a story, “Evo” suggests a process of change, and “Pure” represents a final state achieved through a process of refinement (see the PURITY concept frame below). Many tiering sets can be seen through this lens, especially as they pull from various metaphor types within a single tiering set.
Question: If you have or are considering a STORY ARCH tiering set, what is your goal,? Is it to have movement to a more premium tier seem like an eventual and inevitable progression, OR to make users feel like each tier was designed to meet their unique needs (for examples, the value tier not being lowest, but designed for the most streamlined use)?
DIFFICULTY
Where the story arc meets some of the other spatial frames is in the act of moving through space from the beginning to the end. Starting at the base of the mountain and moving to the peak, or walking from the outer gates to the inner sanctum.
Fulfilling these micro stories involves effort, and therefore tiering can also be indicated through metaphors of difficulty. For example, the premium trims on the Jeep Wrangler are named Sahara and Rubicon, which both indicate challenge and difficulty by highlighting their technical ability to traverse vast desserts. And even if a user did not know about those tests, those spaces alone evoke immensity and challenge.
Consider how DIFFICULTY mapping relates to other conceptual frames. You have to climb up the mountain for elevation. You have to work to get into deeper or more exclusive circles. You have to press forward to become a leader. You have to go to great lengths to find rare things or understand complexity or have the knowledge to appreciate luxury or craft goods or carry bigger stuff. We intuitively map progress to effort, and effort to value through reward.
Difficulty mapping is also often a win-win, since it automatically gets you two countervailing value hierarchies: what is easy is pleasant, what is difficult is rewarding. Type I versus Type II fun. The lesson is this – make entry level offerings “fun” and higher-level offerings “rewarding”.
Question: What is the accomplishment that your customers most desire? What is the trial that that they most respect? In the Wrangler example, it may be adventure and testing limits. Explore this in your next naming brainstorm.
PURITY and RARITY
Exploiting the PURITY metaphor is a useful naming strategy for tiers that exclude fluff as they increase in value, as opposed to adding material.
For example, if your top-of-the-line product is leaner, lighter, or thinner than cheaper options, instead of using a SIZE domain that might run counter to expectations, you can use the PURITY domain to indicate that there is less of what you don't need. The higher quality product is refined.
Products that use "Air" or "Clear", or related metaphors, are often using this strategy. Compare the MacBook Pro to the MacBook Air -- the use of "Air" indicates high "purity" and a lack of "things you don't need/want" and the lack of features vis-a-vis the Pro is thus branded with a positive value indicator that doesn't cause interference with the value proposition represented by "Pro".
Or think about clothing brands that offer staple items along with more premium goods – t-shirts and socks, etc. The most common names for these lines – “Basics” and “Essentials” – use the ELEVATION and PURITY frames, respectively. But “Basics” is the lowest in ELEVATION, while “Essentials” is the highest in PURITY.
There is often overlap between PURITY and another conceptual frame for tiering that requires little explanation: RARITY. The word 'rare' in fact has some alternate meanings like 'thin' or 'pure', in contexts like "rarefied air". When there is less of something, it’s value typically increases.
Question: Are your brand’s PURITY metaphors suggesting “refinement”, or just “not as much”? This is rarely a question just about a given product name or tier label, but rather how that name is interpreted in relation to other tiers, products, or brands.
DIFFERENCE without HIERARCHY
In any discussion of tiering and the language used to expresses product hierarchies, we should also consider those situations where we actually want to avoid or even scramble your hierarchies.
Maybe we have a product line where we want to differentiate offerings without implying that one is better than the other. If you can focus more on differentiation of value and unique properties as opposed to ranking and hierarchy, you can project a clearer fit of offers to consumer needs.
There are many ways to do this, and a few conceptual patterns to be aware of.
One way to obscure or avoid hierarchy is through something we’ve already looked at above: the use of mixed conceptual frames. For example, see Spectrum’s tiered TV plans, “Stream” [LOW DIFFICULTY], “Select Signature” [RARITY], and “Select Plus” [SIZE]. The names appeal to differing and non-competing value sets, so the ranking between them gets obscured.
There’s also use-case naming – think “Family size” or “Personal pizza”, or the MINI Countryman with 4-wheel drive. You indicate a role or experience for the consumer to model the use-case for the product. Providing a use-case differentiates without explicitly marking relative value.
However, you must remember that meanings are contextual – context changes, and meaning changes with it.
It is therefore important to recognize when something that might have once been a use-case type of name has become a hierarchical product tier marker. Sports cars, after all, were initially designed for the specific use-case of sport racing, but because of their expense and thus exclusivity, the term “sport” now also indicates something that’s of a higher tier.
Similarly, when you differentiate products through names, consumers are likely to try and determine an implicit ranking.
You might think that using related but non-ranked terms could solve this problem – like making a “blue”, “red”, and “green” plan, since colors are not inherently ranked. But often it’s when terms are related that we are more likely to attempt to rank them. If “green” is “go, easy, ready” and “red” is “stop, dangerous, hard”, then “red” is likely to be interpreted as the higher tier of two options – as per the DIFFICULTY frame.
Question: Are the names you’re using for related products suggesting a hierarchy that you’re not intending? It can sometimes actually be trickier to avoid hierarchy than to establish it.
Final Thoughts
Naming requires thinking about all of the implied meanings and relationships a name could suggest to your audience – meanings that are often effective precisely because they operate a little below the radar. The basic spatial and physical metaphors described in the conceptual frames above are some of the most effective tools that we have for understanding new ideas, products, and services, and making them coherent to new audiences.
If your organization is looking for effective language to direct audience or consumer action and achieve strategic goals, in product tiering or otherwise, boiling down your naming and word choices to their basic conceptual and metaphorical underpinnings can provide new levels of direction and clarity. While creativity and innovation involve a lot of fine details and specifics, they are fundamentally driven by choices at the level of basic concept.
John Elliott PhD is a linguist and verbal branding consultant based in Honolulu, HI. He works with brands and agencies to develop names and verbal branding strategies based on his expertise in descriptive linguistics, semantic typology, and ontology engineering.