| Course | MMHA 6800 Marketing Management and Business Communication for Healthcare Administrators |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Positioning argument |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MMHA 6800 Week 2
Neither the Strip-Mall Clinic Nor the Emergency Room: A Positioning Argument for a Pediatric Urgent Care Site
Student Name
Walden University
MMHA 6800: Marketing Management and Business Communication for Healthcare Administrators
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Neither the Strip-Mall Clinic Nor the Emergency Room: A Positioning Argument for a Pediatric Urgent Care Site
The Positioning Problem
Brightwater Kids Urgent Care at Maple Crossing, the pediatric site at the center of this course's composite launch, must find a place in parents' minds between two existing options. On one side is FirstCare, a family urgent care chain with two locations nearby that treats patients of all ages, is open long hours and is familiar to most families. On the other side is Brightwater's own children's emergency department, fourteen miles away, which parents trust for serious illness. Positioning is the choice of where a service sits relative to those alternatives, in terms the audience already uses.
The new site must be clearly different from FirstCare, or parents will have no reason to drive past a familiar sign. And it must be clearly different from the emergency department, or parents with seriously ill children may come to the wrong place, and the health system will cannibalize its own emergency volume in ways that confuse families. This paper argues for one position that meets both tests and explains what it rules out.
What the Audience Already Believes
The Week 1 audience brief identified parents deciding where a sick child goes after the pediatrician's office closes. Their beliefs about the two alternatives shape what position is available. Informal interviews with twelve parents in Maple Crossing, summarized in Table 1, illustrate those beliefs.
The gap is plain: expertise with children lives in the emergency department, and convenience lives at FirstCare. The new site can claim the combination. Services research in health care has noted that patients judge quality largely through cues they can observe, such as how staff handle them and their families, because they cannot judge clinical skill directly (Berry & Bendapudi, 2007). For parents, the observable cue of pediatric expertise is how comfortably staff examine a frightened child.
Table 1
What Parents Say About Current Options (Illustrative, 12 Interviews)
| Option | What parents value | What worries them |
|---|---|---|
| FirstCare family urgent care | Close, quick, open late, familiar | Staff seem more used to adults; one parent described a struggle to examine a toddler's ears; unsure about X-rays for children |
| Children's emergency department | Experts in children, everything available | Fourteen miles, long waits for minor problems, cost, feels like overreacting |
| Waiting for the pediatrician | Trust, records, no extra cost | Child suffers overnight; may end up in the emergency department anyway |
Parents trust children's expertise and value convenience, but no current option offers both for minor problems in the evening.
The Proposed Position
The proposed position is: for the evening and weekend illnesses and injuries that do not need an emergency department, Brightwater Kids Urgent Care is the nearby place built only for children, with care reported back to your child's own doctor.
Each part of the statement does a job. "Evening and weekend illnesses and injuries that do not need an emergency department" fixes the category and draws the line with the emergency department. "Nearby" claims the convenience FirstCare offers. "Built only for children" is the point of difference from FirstCare, and it can be shown in staffing, equipment sized for children and rooms designed for families. "Reported back to your child's own doctor" draws on the pediatric guidance that urgent care should coordinate with the medical home (Conners et al., 2017) and reassures parents who worry about fragmented care.
Testing the Position Against FirstCare
Against FirstCare, the position must be believable and important. It is believable because the site will employ only clinicians with pediatric training and stock pediatric equipment, facts that can be stated plainly. It is important because the parent interviews named comfort with children as FirstCare's weak point. The position does not attack FirstCare or claim better outcomes, which the system has no evidence for. It claims a difference parents can see.
There is evidence that the type of urgent care setting matters for children. A national analysis of antibiotic prescribing found that urgent care centers prescribed antibiotics for respiratory conditions more often than other outpatient settings (Palms et al., 2018). The campaign should not use that finding to imply that FirstCare prescribes poorly, which would be unfair and unsupported. But the site's own leaders can hold themselves to careful pediatric prescribing, and that commitment, if met, supports the position over time.
Testing the Position Against the Emergency Department
Against the emergency department, the position must be clear about limits. A site that claims too much risks parents bringing a child with breathing difficulty or a severe injury to a place that must transfer them. The position therefore names the category, illnesses and injuries that do not need an emergency department, and every campaign piece will carry a short list of signs that mean the emergency department or 911 instead. That list protects children and also protects the system's credibility.
Some emergency volume will shift to the new site. That is intended. Analyses suggest a meaningful share of emergency visits could be handled in urgent care at lower cost (Weinick et al., 2010). For Brightwater, a shift of low-acuity pediatric visits from its emergency department to the new site frees emergency capacity for sicker children.
What the Position Rules Out
Table 2
Messages the Position Excludes
| Excluded message | Why |
|---|---|
| Faster than the emergency room | Invites comparison for serious problems the site does not treat |
| Better care than FirstCare | Unsupported comparative claim |
| For the whole family | Dilutes the point of difference |
| Open when you need us | Vague; the site has specific hours |
Saying no to these four lines is part of holding the position.
Conclusion
Brightwater Kids Urgent Care should take the position of the nearby place built only for children, for evening and weekend problems that do not need an emergency department, with care reported back to the child's own doctor. That position fills the gap parents described between FirstCare's convenience and the emergency department's expertise, claims only what the site can show and draws a clear line that keeps seriously ill children going to the right place.
References
Berry, L. L., & Bendapudi, N. (2007). Health care: A fertile field for service research. Journal of Service Research, 10(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507306682
Conners, G. P., Kressly, S. J., Perrin, J. M., Richerson, J. E., & Sankrithi, U. M. (2017). Nonemergency acute care: When it's not the medical home. Pediatrics, 139(5), e20170629. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0629
Palms, D. L., Hicks, L. A., Bartoces, M., Hersh, A. L., Zetts, R., Hyun, D. Y., & Fleming-Dutra, K. E. (2018). Comparison of antibiotic prescribing in retail clinics, urgent care centers, emergency departments, and traditional ambulatory care settings in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(9), 1267-1269. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1632
Weinick, R. M., Burns, R. M., & Mehrotra, A. (2010). Many emergency department visits could be managed at urgent care centers and retail clinics. Health Affairs, 29(9), 1630-1636. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0748
The Walden MMHA 6800 Week 2 instructions
Positioning arguments ask you to place a service in the minds of its audience relative to the alternatives they already know. Name the alternatives and what the audience values and fears about each, using interviews or other evidence. Identify the gap no current option fills. Write a position statement and explain why each part of it is there. Test the position against each alternative: is it believable, is it important to the audience and can you prove it? Address risks, such as claiming too much or drawing the wrong customers. Then list the messages the position rules out and explain why. Avoid comparative claims you cannot support, even when they would sell well, and keep the statement short enough that every later campaign piece can be checked against it.
How this MMHA 6800 Week 2 example is built
The paper opens by naming the two reference points and the double constraint. Table 1 summarizes what parents value and fear about the chain, the emergency department and waiting for the pediatrician. A section identifies the gap between convenience and children's expertise, citing Berry and Bendapudi. The position statement follows, with each phrase explained and Conners and colleagues cited for the report-back promise. One section tests the position against the chain, citing Palms and colleagues without implying the competitor prescribes poorly. Another tests it against the emergency department, citing Weinick and colleagues. Table 2 lists four excluded messages with reasons, and the conclusion restates the position in full.
Where the marks sit in the MMHA 6800 Week 2 rubric
Positioning papers earn their first marks for defining the competitive frame clearly, naming the alternatives the audience actually considers. Evidence about how the audience sees those alternatives earns the next share. For the statement itself, markers ask two things: does every phrase earn its place, and is the whole distinct, believable and important? Testing it against every alternative, with attention to what can be proven, shows rigor. Credit goes to papers that recognize the risk of drawing customers the service cannot help and draw a clear limit. Listing excluded messages demonstrates discipline. Fair treatment of competitors, without unsupported comparisons, is expected in health care. Citations should support claims about the audience and the market.
MMHA 6800 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Positioning papers often describe a service's features and call that a position. A position is a place relative to alternatives, in the audience's words. Ask people what they value and fear about the options they use now. Find the gap. Write one sentence and test every word. Make sure you can prove the difference you claim. Say what you will not say, especially comparisons you cannot support. If your service sits near an emergency department, draw the line clearly. We can help you interview your audience and write a positioning argument for a service your organization is launching, one your agency can build a campaign on without drifting.
Get a MMHA 6800 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Name the service line and the competitor your prompt points to, attach the Week 2 prompt and rubric, and the argument tests every point of difference for proof and deliverability. First argument free, back within 24 to 48 hours. Both the chain and the health system here are composites, and no real competitor's services are characterized.
More MMHA 6800 papers and MHA samples
- MMHA 6800 Week 1: Audience Brief
- MMHA 6800 Week 3: Marketing Claim Review
- MMHA 6800 Week 4: Campaign Brief
- MMHA 6800 Week 5: Message Testing Report
- MMHA 6800 Week 6: Patient Letter on Hours
- MMHA 6800 Week 7: Physician Referral Pitch
- MMHA 6800 Week 8: Press Statement
- MMHA 6800 Week 9: Crisis Statement
- MMHA 6800 Week 10: Ad Copy Review
- MMHA 6800 Week 11: Campaign Disclosure Review
- MMHA 6700 Week 2: Admission Process Map
- MMHA 6601 Week 2: Disruptive Innovation Post
- MMHA 6600 Week 2: Copy-Forward Note Review
- MMHA 5500 Week 2: Healthcare Job Description Build
MMHA 6800 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MMHA 6800 Week 2 sample paper?
The positioning argument, interview table and excluded-messages table included, is posted here at no cost.
What position does the MMHA 6800 Week 2 example propose?
A nearby place built only for children, for evening and weekend problems that do not need an emergency department, with care reported back to the child's doctor.
What gap does the position fill?
Parents find children's expertise only in the emergency department and convenience only at the family urgent care chain.
How does the position protect against emergency confusion?
It names the category of problems that do not need emergency care and every piece carries emergency warning signs.
Which messages does the position rule out?
Faster than the ER, better than the competitor, care for the whole family and vague claims about being open when needed.