B2BFYI #12: Your brand positioning questions answered

Welcome! 👋 The B2BFYI newsletter is for B2B marketers looking for a competitive edge. Covering brand, marketing + tech, B2BFYI serves as a guide to building a more effective marketing strategy.

B2BFYI is written by industry veterans Chris Bennett (Strategy), Geoff Bretherick (Creative) and Philip Bennison (Tech), and published weekly. You can sign up here to get issues straight to your inbox.

I get asked about brand positioning a lot.

Usually after someone's tried to do it themselves, realised it's harder than they thought, and now they're stuck with a pile of post-it notes and a strategy deck that despite the 67 slides says absolutely nothing.

The questions are always different, but in many ways hit upon the same core problems over and over again.

So I've collected the seven most common ones here. Some come from conversations over the last few weeks, others directly from our clients. Hopefully there’s something in here to enlighten you too!

Short answer: brand positioning is a component of a wider brand strategy.

There’s are many parts to a brand strategy, from how you align your brand visually with your market and ICP, to your tone of voice. One of these components is your positioning.

Your brand position is where you exist in your market in the eyes of your prospects and clients. It also includes how you measure up against the competition. This is important because without clearly defining your position, everything downstream of that (visual + verbal identity, for example) has no real foundations.

This is the question that keeps many a B2B marketer up at night. And it's a tough one to answer, because positioning isn't like a campaign where you can just track some data and see what’s going on.

Positioning works slowly. It's cumulative. It's about perception, which means you're playing the long game whether you like it or not. And that means it can fall in a grey area where measurement becomes a real pain. Instead, look for signals. Then evaluate these regularly. Don’t do it in isolation either. Bring in sales and client-facing delivery roles to understand what’s going on in more detail (and matches with actual reality).

Here are some examples:

→ Sales conversations get easier. Reps spend less time explaining who you are and what you do, and more time talking about the actual problem you solve.

→ Inbound gets more qualified. You start getting enquiries from people who already get it, rather than tyre kickers who need three calls to understand your basic value proposition.

→ Your competitors start sounding like you. This is actually a good sign. It means you've staked out territory that others now want to claim. Downside: now you need to protect that territory. Get those shovels out and start building your moat!

→ Pricing objections decrease. When your positioning is clear and differentiated, price becomes less of an issue because people aren't comparing you directly to cheaper alternatives. If you clearly present as an elite, premium option, you will also help price-senstitive buyers filter themselves out.

→ Win rates improve. You're winning deals you would have lost before, often without having to discount as heavily or make other frustrating compromises.

I worked with a recruitment firm who positioned themselves from mid- to premium-market and were able to raise their fees 30% off the back of it. Their new positioning attracted the right buyers and repelled the wrong ones. The updated brand positioning gave prospects a frame to understand the value in a way that mattered to them.

The mistake most people make is looking for immediate results. If you're repositioning properly, you're shifting perceptions. That doesn't happen in a quarter. It happens over a year, maybe two.

Be patient. And try not to panic and change everything again after three months because you haven't seen a hockey stick in your pipeline.

Welcome to B2B in 2026. Everyone's saying the same thing because everyone's copying each other, hoping that if they just say "AI-powered" or "data-driven" or "customer-centric" enough times, someone will believe them.

If your competitors are saying the same thing as you, it's probably because you're all saying nothing. Or at least, nothing of value to the market.

You're not actually positioning. You're just describing features of your offering and wrapping them in industry jargon that sounds somewhat professional.

Real positioning is specific. It's opinionated. It makes a claim about who you're for and who you're not for.

Let me give you an example. Three companies in the same space:

Company A: "We help enterprises transform their digital operations with AI-powered insights."

Company B: "Unlocking real value in digital operations for enterprise businesses."

Company C: "Enterprise digital operations for businesses that want to scale from £100M-£1B without risking infrastructure security."

Which one sounds different? Which one makes you think "that's for me" or "that's definitely not for me"?

If everyone's saying the same thing, it means there's white space. Find it. Claim it. Own it.

And if you're genuinely in a commoditised market where differentiation is nearly impossible? Then your positioning becomes about how you do what you do, not just what you do.

Sometimes, to differentiate you just need to be really damned specific.

Client outcomes. Always.

No one cares about your capabilities except you and your delivery team. Everyone has the same capabilities, and no - not even the CEO can convince me you’re somehow “special” and “do it differently”. Unless you’re some unicorn business with £500K salaried geniuses, there’s likely to be very little in your offering that’s different from the competition. That’s the challenge of being mid-market.

Your clients care about their problems. Their goals. Their KPIs. Their board presentations. Their budget meetings. Their asses being on the line when something goes wrong.

Your service is just the mechanism. The outcome is what matters.

But - and this is important - you can't just say "we drive outcomes" and think you're done. You need to be specific about which outcomes and for whom.

"We help marketing teams generate more leads" is not an outcome. It's a vague promise that every marketing tool claims.

"We help B2B SaaS companies with long sales cycles prove marketing's contribution to pipeline, so CMOs can finally win their budget battles" … that's an outcome.

Or even our previous example of Company C: "Enterprise digital operations for businesses that want to scale from £100M-£1B without risking infrastructure security."

See the difference? One is generic. The other is speaking directly to a specific person with a specific problem.

They don’t think “hey, I’ll work with these folks - I’d love some enterprise digital operations!”. They are thinking “we DO want to scale to £1B revenue, and yes - we DO want to do it without risking our infrastructure.”

I've seen companies waste months arguing about whether to lead with "AI-powered this" or "superior service delivery." Both are wrong. The right answer is whatever the hell the client actually NEEDS SOLVING.

Capabilities are proof points. Outcomes are the positioning.

Not necessarily. But probably.

It depends on whether your positioning travels.

If you're a cybersecurity company moving from mid-market to enterprise, your positioning probably needs to evolve. You’ll be battling with established peer competitors who look and sound way bigger than you do. The problems are different at scale. The decision-makers are different. The buying process is completely different. In other words, you run the risk of showing up looking like a 12-year old boy wearing his dad’s suit. That won’t win you deals, but it WILL get you laughed out of a boardroom.

I have literally witnesses this first hand, and it’s not fun.

But if you're just expanding geographically? Maybe not. The core positioning might work, but the messaging, and how you express that positioning, will likely need to adapt for cultural and market nuances.

I worked with a UK-based recruitment firm that wanted to enter the US market (pre the disaster of Trump’s second term…). Their positioning was, paraphrased, "the elite solution for supply chain recruitment". That worked brilliantly in the UK where there's not much competition, but in the US there were a billion much larger and more established firms that just drowned them out. Similarly, the overly stuffy nature of their messaging was just not a good fit for a straight-talking market.

Here's what to ask:

→ Are the problems we solve the same in this new market? If yes, you might be fine.

→ Are the decision-makers the same? If no, you probably need to adapt.

→ Do we have the same credibility and proof points? If no, you might need to position more conservatively until you've earned trust. You WILL get asked about your experience in the new market.

The biggest mistake is assuming your positioning is universal just because your offering is.

It's not. Positioning is always context-dependent.

Not as often as you think.

Good positioning should last 3-5 years. If you're changing it more frequently than that, you either didn't do it properly in the first place, or you're reacting to short-term pressures instead of long-term strategy.

But you should review it annually.

Things change. Markets shift. Competitors emerge. Your offering evolves. Client needs change. What worked two years ago might not work today. Hell, in this economy it might not work next month.

The person with their finger on the pulse of the industry should be your CEO. They should be the ones to pick up on when the mood of the market shifts and the business (and therefore brand) may need a rapid pivot.

Anyway, an annual review doesn't mean a complete overhaul. It means asking:

→ Is this still true? Does our positioning still reflect reality?

→ Is this still differentiated? Have our competitors caught up?

→ Is this still resonating? Are we seeing the signals that it's working?

If the answer to all three is yes, leave it alone. Consistency is more valuable than novelty.

If the answer to any of them is no, you might need to evolve. Not change completely, but evolve.

I've seen companies panic and completely reposition because one competitor launched a similar service. That's just crazy. Unless your entire market has fundamentally shifted, tweaking your messaging is usually enough.

The exception is if you've had a major service pivot, acquisition, or you've discovered that your best clients are in a completely different segment than you thought. Then yes, revisit everything.

But for most B2B companies - set it, measure it, refine it. Don't burn it all down and start again every 18 months because someone in leadership is overly twitchy.

Yes. But carefully.

This is where things get tricky, because you can absolutely position differently for different segments, as long as there's a core truth that connects them all.

Think of it like a hierarchy. There's the overall brand positioning at the top, and then there are segment-specific expressions of that positioning on a smaller scale.

Example: HubSpot's core positioning is "the CRM platform that grows with you." But they have different expressions for startups ("get started free, upgrade when you're ready"), mid-market ("scale without the enterprise pain"), and enterprise ("all the power, none of the complexity").

Same positioning. Different emphasis.

Another example is from a chat I had at a networking event in January 2026. The company was a fintech startup, a provider of business loans (like a bank, but not a bank) financed by everyday folk. Kinda like crowdsourced financing. Their positioning had to be very different across three core customer segments: young professionals (who have low awareness and education on the topic), senior professionals (who want to maximise their investments) and retirees (who want to have safe investments). Very different problems, audiences and solutions required.

The danger is trying to be everything to everyone. If your segment-specific positioning is so different that they contradict each other, you don't have a brand. You have three different brands pretending to be one.

Could you put all your segment-specific messaging on the same homepage and still make sense? If not, you've gone too far.

The other risk is operational chaos. Your sales team needs to clearly understand who you are. Your marketing team needs consistent guidelines. Your service team needs a direction of travel.

If everyone's confused about what you stand for because you're positioned five different ways, you've created internal paralysis.

My advice is to have one core positioning. Then create messaging frameworks for each segment that emphasise different aspects of that positioning.

Don't create completely different positioning unless you're genuinely running different brands (which is a legitimate strategy, but a much more complex one).

It's not the creative work that's hard. It's the internal alignment.

You can workshop positioning in a week. You can refine messaging in a fortnight. But getting your CEO, your sales director, your lead consultant, and your board all to agree on what you stand for?

That's seriously hard work.

And it never ends. Because even after you've agreed, someone will want to add "just one more thing" to the positioning statement (always). Someone will think you're being too narrow. Someone will worry you're alienating potential clients.

This is why most B2B positioning is bland. It's been compromised into meaninglessness by a committee of people that all had their own agenda.

If you're serious about positioning, you need a champion. Someone senior enough to make clear decisions, and to see them through. Someone willing to say "no, we're not trying to appeal to everyone."

Otherwise you'll end up with positioning that technically says all the right things but sounds like it was written by a risk-averse AI trained on a decade of corporate websites. And, sadly, that’s literally what happens sometimes…

And no one remembers that business.

-chris