There is a reason positioning workshops involve so much talk and so little decision: the right answer comes at a price.
A company that commits to one application visibly gives up being the first choice for all the others. While the order books are full, that looks like unnecessary risk. When they are empty, it looks reckless.
That is why many positioning processes end in a compromise: a statement that covers everything so far and offends nobody. It is unassailable and ineffective.
Definition
Positioning is the decision about which customer type an offering should be the best available choice for, including the decision about which customer types it will not be the best choice for. Without the second part, it is a self-description rather than a position.
Why opinions don't get you further
The usual course of a positioning workshop looks like this: the leadership team sits together for a day, collects strengths, discusses target groups and finally agrees on a statement everyone can live with.
The problem with this process is the basis for the decision. When the basis is opinions, the most assertive person in the room wins. That is rarely the person who knows the market best.
The alternative is unspectacular: the decision is anchored in your own data. Every company with more than two years of history already has it, usually in the ERP and the quote statistics.
Question 1: Which customers are actually profitable?
Not: which generate the most revenue. But: for which is there actually something left after sales effort, special requests, rework and payment terms.
Analysing the last two years by contribution margin per order, grouped by industry, company size and application, reveals the same pattern in almost every engagement: a manageable group of orders carries the profit, while a much larger group ties up capacity without contributing much.
What matters is less the exact distribution than what the profitable group has in common. Often it is a technical condition: a particular tolerance class, a regulatory environment, a batch size.
Question 2: Which enquiries do we regularly lose, and why?
Lost tenders are the most honest market research available, and they cost nothing. In most companies they are not analysed, because nobody likes looking back at them.
The relevant analysis distinguishes three reasons for losing: price, professional fit and perception. The third is the interesting one. If an order is lost although the offer was technically superior and competitively priced, the presentation is to blame. And marketing can influence that directly.
Ask in such cases. A call to the buyer a week after the rejection regularly brings out statements nobody inside the company would have voiced.
| Reason | Typical share | Field of action |
|---|---|---|
| Price, with comparable performance | high | Positioning, because without a difference price decides |
| Professional fit genuinely lacking | medium | Sharper targeting: do not pursue such enquiries |
| Supplier unknown or seemed smaller | medium | Visibility and presentation of references |
| Existing supplier relationship | medium | Long-term presence instead of a one-off campaign |
| Offer was hard to understand | underestimated | Messaging and proposal structure |
The shares vary considerably between companies. Analysing your own last 30 to 50 lost enquiries is more meaningful than any industry average.
Question 3: What could a competitor not claim about itself?
This is the fastest test for any positioning statement. Take the sentence you have agreed on and put the name of your strongest competitor in front of it.
If the sentence is still true, it is not a position. “We stand for quality and partnership” passes this test for every competitor. “We build systems exclusively for validated environments in the pharmaceutical industry and decline orders outside this area” is passed by very few.
The second sentence looks riskier, and it is. It is also the only one of the two that makes a prospect get in touch.
Question 4: Which enquiries will we no longer actively pursue?
This is the real decision, and it is the one most often avoided, usually with the argument that you don't want to close any doors.
This is not about turning down orders. A company can position itself on ventilation for cleanrooms and still build a heating system when an existing customer asks for it. The difference lies in where marketing budget and sales time are spent.
Anyone who does not take this decision takes it anyway, just unconsciously and in favour of whatever happens to come in. That is usually the small, price-driven work, because it is searched for most often.
How to make the decision stick
- Data before discussion. Margin analysis and loss analysis are on the table before the first workshop, not afterwards.
- Sales leadership takes part, it does not just listen. A position sales does not support will never be spoken.
- Customer interviews rather than self-image. Two to three conversations with existing customers about their actual selection process reliably correct internal assumptions.
- Make what you give up explicit. A written list of what will no longer be promoted. Otherwise the choice remains theoretical.
- Set a review date. After twelve months, the order data shows whether the assumption held.
What gets easier afterwards
The real benefit of positioning shows in the speed of subsequent decisions.
The home page can be written because it is clear who it is for. Whether a particular trade portal is worthwhile is answered in five minutes. Sales knows which enquiry to prioritise. And the marketing budget is spread across fewer channels with more impact per channel.
That is why positioning is the cheapest investment you can make in complex markets: it takes two to four weeks and lowers the cost of every measure that follows.