B2B Positioning Statement Template

Most templates use the same shape: for [segment], [product] is a [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [main alternative], it [differentiator].

The alternative comes first, since your differentiator has to beat it, and often it is no purchase at all. April Dunford, a positioning consultant and author of Obviously Awesome, writes that enterprise software companies typically lose 20% to 30% of deals to "no decision"¹. The buyer sticks with a spreadsheet or a manual process.

Your CRM's loss reason field won't show this reliably. Reps fill it in from a short list as the deal closes, and Price is the easy answer when nobody knows the real one. Instead, read the notes, last emails and handover for every loss, and sort each by what the buyer actually did:

• Status quo: bought nothing and kept the current way of working
• Direct alternative: bought a named product in your category
• Adjacent alternative: used a tool they already owned, such as accounting software
• Build: made it themselves
• Price: chose a comparable product for less, and said so

Write the segment as traits an outsider could check: an industry code, a headcount band, a certification on staff, a system already installed. "Growing companies that value efficiency" fails, since nobody can build a list from it. A trait you can only learn by asking the buyer is a qualifying question, not part of the segment. If you have no segment yet, an ideal customer profile ranks candidates by retention as well as win rate.

Then test each trait on your closed deals, alone and combined, comparing win rate, deal size and sales cycle inside and outside. The traits easiest to see can carry the least. In the template's example, sales qualified on industry code and technician count. Deals with both won 28.2% of the time, against 23.0% overall. Remove the deals that also had the other two traits, and the rest won just 10.2%.

The segment that held needed all four traits: those two, plus a certified technician on staff and at least 40% of revenue from maintenance. It won 61.9% of the time, producing 44.1% of all wins from just 16.4% of closed deals.

Put the count beside every rate, and distrust small groups. For comparison, the US National Center for Health Statistics won't publish a percentage based on fewer than 30 cases², and it applies further precision checks even then.

List every difference your team believes in. Then check each alternative's product pages and documentation, and count how many make the same claim. Trust documentation over marketing copy, which can promise features still on the roadmap. The template's rule: if three or more make the claim, it is table stakes, not a reason to switch.

Table stakes still earn a place. In Harvard Business Review in 2002, marketing professors Kevin Lane Keller, Brian Sternthal and Alice Tybout argued that positioning must weigh points of parity as well as points of difference³. Buyers comparing a shortlist look for the features you share with rivals, so list them on your product pages, not in your reason to switch.

Cut anything nobody can measure or demonstrate. "Better support" fails, while "first reply within two business hours, measured monthly" passes. In the template's example, one of nine claimed differentiators survived: dispatch that checks each technician's certification before assigning a job. To see which rivals sit closest, plot them on a competitive positioning map.

Only now write the statement. Take the category from your buyers, not your pitch deck: what won deals searched for, and what buyers called you in their first message. Aim the unlike clause at the biggest group from your re-read, even when that group bought nothing.

Under the statement, list each clause with the number behind it. Then note what you rejected and why: the category you passed on, segment traits you dropped and differentiators that failed. Someone will propose each again, and the note settles it in minutes.

The statement stays internal, but its claims reach your homepage, ads and sales deck. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission requires advertisers to have a reasonable basis for objective claims before they run⁴. Lines like "the only," "the first" and "live in one week" all count.

The FTC's 1979 policy statement on comparative advertising encourages naming competitors⁵ but requires clarity, and it judges a comparison the same way as any other ad. For every comparison, keep dated copies of the competitor pages you checked, and list everywhere the claim appears.

Recheck each comparison on a schedule, since a claim turns false the day a rival ships the feature. The template sets quarterly reviews for software claims, and yearly ones for those resting on a standard or certification.

The template on this page works through every test for a made-up company, and Edit with AI starts on your own lost deals in River. Once the statement holds, turn it into a homepage value proposition, or brief sales on each rival with a battlecard.