This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Drew Madore
I've reviewed maybe 200 brand positioning statements in the past two years. Want to know something depressing? About 180 of them could swap company names and nobody would notice.
"We're innovative." "Customer-focused." "Industry-leading solutions." Cool. So is everyone else at the conference.
Here's the thing: brand positioning isn't failing because marketers don't understand the theory. We've all read the same books. We know about perceptual maps and value propositions and differentiation. The frameworks are fine.
The execution is where everything falls apart.
Because building a genuinely differentiated brand position in 2025 means making choices that make your CEO uncomfortable. It means saying no to market segments. It means accepting that some people will actively dislike your brand. And in an era where every company wants to be everything to everyone (because growth targets), that's a tough sell in the boardroom.
But it's also the only thing that works.
The Commodity Trap Is Real (And You're Probably In It)
Let's start with an uncomfortable truth: most B2B brands are functionally identical to their competitors.
I don't mean the products are the same—though honestly, in many categories they're closer than anyone wants to admit. I mean the way they position themselves in the market is interchangeable.
Look at any three SaaS companies in the same category. They all promise to "streamline workflows," "increase productivity," and "scale with your business." Their websites have the same hero images (diverse team pointing at laptop, check). Their case studies promise similar results (200-300% ROI seems to be the sweet spot). Their pricing pages have three tiers: Basic, Professional, and Enterprise.
This isn't positioning. This is template marketing.
The data backs this up. Research from the B2B Institute shows that 70% of B2B buyers can't meaningfully differentiate between brands in their consideration set. Not because buyers are stupid—because brands aren't giving them anything distinctive to latch onto.
And before you think this is just a B2B problem: consumer brands aren't much better. Count how many DTC mattress companies promise "better sleep at a fraction of the cost" or meal kit services that offer "fresh ingredients delivered to your door."
The commodity trap happens when you define your position relative to category norms instead of breaking them. When your differentiation is "we do what everyone else does, but slightly better/cheaper/faster."
That's not a position. That's a price war waiting to happen.
What Actually Makes a Position Defensible
Real brand positioning creates separation. Not inches—miles.
Think about Liquid Death. They sell water. Literally one of the most commoditized products on earth. Their positioning? "Murder Your Thirst" with punk rock aesthetic and tallboy cans that look like beer. They're not competing with Dasani on hydration benefits. They're not even playing the same game.
Or look at what Gong did in the sales intelligence space. Instead of positioning as "better call recording software," they positioned around revenue intelligence and created an entirely new category. Now competitors have to define themselves relative to Gong's framing.
Apple (yes, obvious example, but bear with me) doesn't position on specs. Never has. While every other tech company was shouting about megapixels and processor speeds, Apple was talking about creativity and self-expression. Completely different playing field.
What these brands have in common: they made specific, limiting choices about who they're for and what they stand for.
Liquid Death isn't for everyone. If you want pure, clean, wholesome hydration, they're actively turning you off. That's intentional.
Gong bet everything on a specific category definition. If they were wrong about "revenue intelligence" resonating, the company would have struggled. They weren't hedging.
Apple famously doesn't compete on price or try to capture every market segment. They're expensive and proud of it.
These choices create risk. They also create differentiation that actually means something.
The Three Dimensions of Positioning That Matter
Most positioning frameworks overcomplicate things. You don't need a 47-slide deck. You need clarity on three dimensions:
Who you're for (and who you're not for)
This is where most brands chicken out. They want to be for "mid-market and enterprise" or "millennials and Gen Z" or "anyone who needs our solution."
No. Pick.
Patagonia is for people who care about environmental activism first and outdoor gear second. If you just want a cheap jacket, go to Target. They're fine with that.
Roam Research positioned initially for "writers and researchers who think in networks." Not "anyone who takes notes." That specificity built a cult following.
The narrower your "who," the sharper everything else becomes. Your messaging gets clearer. Your product roadmap has focus. Your marketing doesn't try to be everything to everyone.
What you're the best in the world at
Not what you're pretty good at. Not what you're working on improving. What you're genuinely, demonstrably the best at.
This requires honest self-assessment. Most companies think they're the best at way more things than they actually are.
Mailchimp positioned around being the best at email marketing for small businesses. Not enterprise. Not marketing automation for mid-market. Small businesses. They owned that position so completely that when they tried to expand beyond it, there was brand confusion.
Tesla positioned as the best at making electric vehicles desirable. Not the most affordable EVs. Not the most practical. The most desirable. Everything else flowed from that stake in the ground.
You can only be the best at one, maybe two things. Choose carefully.
Why it matters (beyond functional benefits)
This is the emotional or philosophical dimension that most B2B brands completely ignore. Because apparently business buyers are robots who only care about ROI. (Spoiler: they're not.)
Salesforce doesn't just sell CRM. They sell a vision of democratic access to enterprise software. "No software" wasn't about deployment models—it was about disrupting the old guard.
Shopify positions around entrepreneurship and independence. "Arm the rebels" isn't about e-commerce features. It's about empowering people to build businesses outside traditional retail.
Even in deeply technical categories, the "why it matters" dimension creates emotional resonance. MongoDB positioned around developer freedom and flexibility versus the constraints of traditional databases. That's not just a technical argument—it's philosophical.
If your positioning doesn't include a "why it matters" beyond functional benefits, you're leaving the most defensible dimension on the table.
The Positioning Choices Nobody Wants to Make
Here's where strategy gets real: positioning requires saying no to opportunities.
This is what kills most positioning exercises. The strategy looks great on paper. Then someone from sales says, "But what about this segment?" And someone from product says, "But we're also good at this other thing." And the CFO says, "We can't afford to exclude that market."
So the positioning gets watered down. Hedged. Made "more inclusive."
And suddenly you're back to "innovative solutions for forward-thinking companies."
Look at what Basecamp did. They explicitly positioned against enterprise customers. Not because they couldn't technically serve enterprise—because it would dilute their position as the simple, calm project management tool for small teams. They turned away revenue to maintain positioning clarity.
Mailchimp (before the Intuit acquisition) famously said no to features that enterprise customers wanted because those features would complicate the experience for small businesses. That's a real trade-off with real revenue implications.
Zoom initially focused exclusively on video quality and reliability. They said no to a bunch of collaboration features that competitors were adding because it would distract from their core position. (They eventually added those features after dominating their initial position, which is the right sequence.)
These choices are hard. They require conviction that a strong position with a specific audience beats a weak position with everyone.
Most companies don't have that conviction. So they hedge. And their positioning becomes meaningless.
How to Test If Your Position Actually Works
Theory is great. Here's how you know if your positioning is actually functional:
The substitution test: Replace your brand name in your positioning statement with a competitor's name. Does it still make sense? If yes, your positioning isn't differentiated enough. When you read "Murder Your Thirst," you can't substitute another water brand. That's the standard.
The cocktail party test: Can someone who understands your positioning explain it to a stranger in one sentence without using jargon? If your positioning requires a paragraph of setup and three acronyms, it's too complicated.
The decision-making test: Does your positioning help you make product, marketing, and strategic decisions? Real positioning acts as a filter. "Should we add this feature?" "Does it strengthen our position as X for Y? No? Then no." If your positioning doesn't help you say no to things, it's not strategic.
The employee test: Ask five employees (not in marketing) what makes your brand different. If you get five completely different answers, your positioning isn't clear internally. And if it's not clear internally, it's definitely not clear to customers.
The competitive test: Do competitors have to acknowledge your position or define themselves against it? When Gong created the "revenue intelligence" category, competitors had to respond to that framing. That's a sign of strong positioning.
Most brands fail at least three of these tests. Usually all five.
Repositioning Without Destroying Brand Equity
Sometimes you inherit weak positioning. Or the market shifts. Or your initial position was too narrow and you've outgrown it.
Repositioning is possible. It's also risky.
Old Spice pulled off one of the most dramatic repositions in consumer goods. From "your grandfather's aftershave" to "absurdist masculinity for millennials" in one campaign. It worked because they fully committed. No hedging. No "but we're also still for older guys." They burned the boats.
Adobe repositioned from "software you buy in a box" to "creative cloud for everyone." That wasn't just a business model change—it was a fundamental repositioning around accessibility and continuous value. It took years and consistent messaging.
Microsoft has been repositioning from "enterprise software incumbent" to "cloud-first, developer-friendly platform" for the better part of a decade. Under Satya Nadella, they've been remarkably consistent about that shift, even when it meant cannibalizing legacy businesses.
The pattern: successful repositioning requires complete commitment, consistent execution over years, and willingness to alienate your old position's core audience.
Half-hearted repositioning is worse than no repositioning. You confuse existing customers without attracting new ones.
Building Position Into Everything
Positioning isn't a document. It's a filter for every decision.
Your product roadmap should reinforce your position. If you're positioned around simplicity, every feature addition should be scrutinized through that lens. Slack's early product development was ruthlessly focused on making team communication simple and delightful—they said no to dozens of features that would have added complexity.
Your content and messaging should consistently reinforce your position. Drift positioned around "conversational marketing" and made sure every piece of content, every campaign, every product update reinforced that frame. Repetition isn't boring when you're building a position—it's strategic.
Your pricing should reflect your position. If you're positioned as premium, budget pricing creates cognitive dissonance. If you're positioned around accessibility, enterprise-only pricing contradicts that.
Your partnerships and integrations should support your position. HubSpot's partner ecosystem reinforces their position around inbound marketing and growth. Every integration is evaluated through that strategic lens.
Your customer experience should embody your position. Chewy positioned around obsessive pet parent care. Their customer service (handwritten cards, pet portraits, overnight shipping) isn't just nice—it's proof of position.
When positioning is truly integrated, customers experience it at every touchpoint. It's not what you say—it's what you consistently do.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Differentiation
Real differentiation makes some people dislike you.
If everyone thinks your brand is fine, you're probably not differentiated. You're just... there.
Liquid Death has plenty of detractors who think the brand is stupid. That's the point. The people who love it really love it.
Patagonia's activism pisses off a segment of outdoor enthusiasts who just want gear without politics. Patagonia is fine with that.
Apple's premium positioning and closed ecosystem frustrate people who want flexibility and value. Apple's not trying to win those people.
This is the part that makes executives nervous. "But what about the people who don't like this positioning?"
What about them? They weren't going to be great customers anyway.
Strong positioning attracts your ideal customers intensely while repelling poor-fit customers. That's not a bug. That's the entire point.
The brands that try to appeal to everyone end up mattering to no one.
Where to Start (Because This Feels Overwhelming)
If your current positioning is generic (and statistically, it probably is), here's the path forward:
Start with honest competitive analysis. Not what you wish was true—what's actually true. Print out your homepage and your top three competitors' homepages. Remove logos. Can you tell them apart? If not, you have a positioning problem.
Talk to your best customers. Not all customers—your best ones. The ones who get the most value, refer others, and would be devastated if you disappeared. Ask them why they chose you over alternatives. Ask them how they describe you to colleagues. Their language is often clearer than your marketing team's.
Identify what you're genuinely best at. Not what you want to be best at. What you're demonstrably, provably best at right now. This requires ego-free assessment.
Make a choice about who you're for. Specifically. "B2B SaaS companies" isn't specific. "Series A SaaS companies with product-led growth models" is specific.
Test your positioning internally before external launch. If your team can't consistently articulate it, customers never will.
Commit for at least 18 months. Positioning takes time to sink in. Changing it every quarter because you're not seeing immediate results defeats the purpose.
You don't need permission to start this work. You need conviction that differentiation matters more than trying to please everyone.
The Brands That Win
The brands that win in 2025 and beyond won't be the ones with the biggest budgets or the most features.
They'll be the ones with the clearest positions. The ones that stand for something specific. The ones that make real choices about who they're for and what they're about.
Because in a world where every category is crowded and every customer is overwhelmed with options, clarity is the ultimate competitive advantage.
Your positioning doesn't need to be clever. It needs to be clear, defensible, and consistently executed.
Most brands won't do this work. They'll keep hedging, keep trying to be everything to everyone, keep wondering why their marketing isn't working.
That's your opportunity.
Build a position that actually positions you somewhere distinct. Make the hard choices. Accept that some people won't be your customers.
And watch what happens when you finally give your ideal customers something clear to choose.
This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Drew Madore
Drew Madore | Sciencx (2025-11-17T21:10:31+00:00) Brand Positioning in 2025: Why Your Differentiation Strategy Probably Isn’t Different Enough. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2025/11/17/brand-positioning-in-2025-why-your-differentiation-strategy-probably-isnt-different-enough-4/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.