01
02
03
04
05Sections
All three functions can describe the same company accurately and still hand buyers three different businesses to evaluate. Our positioning page describes the pattern. Sales describes a product, the science team describes a platform and the CEO describes a market.
The usual response is a messaging workshop to find a phrase everyone likes. A phrase everyone likes tends to keep every version alive. The useful first step is to find which decisions under the words were never made.
Collect the versions and mark the mismatches
Ask one person from science or engineering, one from sales and one from leadership to answer the same question separately, in writing.
The question for all three
- What can a customer buy from us today, and why should they choose it?
Offer Architecture explains why the answers have to be written apart.
Lay the three answers beside the current homepage and the opening of the investor deck. Mark every mismatch in four places.
Four places to compare
- The product named
- The audience named
- The maturity or evidence implied
- The next action requested
From inside a company the problem can feel like a lack of focus. Gaurav Vora of RENERGii, a venture studio that builds protein start-ups, described the period before its first funding round in a July 2022 interview. "We were trying to do too many things and were not able to prioritize. When we joined the Trendlines accelerator, we had to get our story in order." That is his account of his own company. In it, the priorities and the story were put in order together.
Sort each mismatch by type
Each mismatch belongs to one of four types. Each type has a different owner and a different next step.
Sort the mismatch, then route it
- The proposition is the same and the words differA writer aligns the words in the source document. The fix needs no meeting.
- The maturity or evidence differs, such as "early validation" beside "commercially proven"The technical owner decides the status from the evidence, and the approved wording goes into the claims register.
- The first buyer, the first offer or the market differsLeadership decides. Where the evidence is missing, the decision becomes a research task with a date.
- Nobody can say who decidesName the owner of the source document before anything else is resolved.
Differences in vocabulary are harmless when the proposition underneath matches. A difference in commercial readiness is a claims question. If science says early validation, sales says commercially proven and the website says ready to deploy, the company has a governance gap, and the tone of voice is the smallest part of it. The evidence register guide sets out how to record each claim with its source and conditions.
The fourth type is easy to miss, because every function assumes someone else owns the words. The third lesson of the Brand Strategy System asks where brand decisions get made, and gives the answer a document, an owner and a rhythm for revisiting it.
Fill the gaps with owners
For the mismatches that need a decision, use a working sheet with three columns.
| Decision | What we know | Who can validate it |
|---|---|---|
| First buyer and use case | The named role and the process it runs | Sales, with customer research |
| First commercial offer | Product, trial, licence or service | Commercial lead and product owner |
| Performance claim | Result, test conditions and limitations | Technical or scientific owner |
| Readiness | Current stage and next milestone | Operations and leadership |
| Decision requested | The next agreement or approval | The buyer-facing owner |
An empty cell is a research task or an executive decision. A writer should flag it and leave it empty. When the open cell is the first buyer, Your Technology Has Five Markets gives the worksheet for choosing.
Give technical people the last word on claims
Scientists and engineers own the accuracy of performance and mechanism claims. Commercial writers own the order, the emphasis and the plain words. Agree the line between the two before anyone drafts.
In practice the technical owner approves each claim, its conditions and its limits once, in the register. Writers may then simplify and reorder, provided every condition that changes the meaning travels with the claim. Legal or regulatory colleagues review separately where their remit requires it. The scientists stop editing every paragraph, and the writers stop guessing which caveats matter. Our guide to who decides what in a rebrand separates a factual correction from a strategic change in the same way.
Test one proposition in four rooms
Run the agreed statement through an investor screening call, a procurement conversation, a technical review and a new employee's first week. The emphasis of the first sentence may change by room. The product, the maturity and the evidence stay the same in all four.
Each function then explains the same facts at the depth its own audience needs. When we first wrote our storytelling framework down, it separated an organisation's own stories, Origin, Vision and Purpose, from the marketing stories used in campaigns and sales. That split still shows who owns what. Leadership agrees the organisational stories, the long-term reason the company exists. The technical owner holds the claims and their limits. The commercial team holds the buyer's questions, the use cases and the next action. Each team cuts its version from the one source.
The quickest check is a handover. A person who heard the sales version should be able to read the technical documentation and recognise the same product. How to Build a Story System covers which four things may change between rooms and which stay fixed.
Decide before you design
The session should end with a proposition under version control, a list of approved claims with their evidence, an audience hierarchy, a named decision owner and a research agenda for what is still unknown. What a positioning workshop should produce sets out that record in full.
If the team still disagrees on which application leads or what can be sold, the session has surfaced a strategic problem. Resolve it before commissioning a design system around a phrase nobody can use in a serious meeting.
To run the working sheet with your own team, start with the free Brand Strategy System. Its seventeen decisions begin with what the company sells and who decides, and end in briefs the website and the deck can be built from.
Questions people ask
How can we tell whether positioning is the reason sales are slow?
Listen to what qualified prospects can and cannot repeat. If they misread the offer or compare it with the wrong alternative, positioning is a likely cause. If they understand it and still cite budget, price, qualification or supply, the constraint sits in the business. Separate the two before paying for a messaging project.
How do we align a launch deck, website and press release around one message?
Write one source version of the offer, the evidence, the change and the next action. Adapt it to each format for its audience and purpose. Then review all three together for claim status, naming and dates. Each can use its own words as long as the facts match.
How should leaders communicate a strategic pivot?
Explain what changed and why the earlier path stopped working, and keep the scientific and commercial work that still holds. Name the trade-offs and the next commitment. Staff and customers need different detail and the same facts. How to Reposition After a Pivot covers the market side.
Sources and further reading
- Offer Architecture, Brighter Future, 2026
- Positioning and Narrative for Climate and Deep Tech Companies, Brighter Future
- Who Should Decide What in a Rebrand?, Brighter Future
- How to Build a Story System Across Investors, Buyers, Partners and Employees, Brighter Future, 2026
- Gaurav Vora, RENERGii, founder interview, Brighter Future, 2022
- Structure and offers, The Brand Strategy System, Brighter Future
Free course lessonThe Brand Strategy System, structure, offers and who decides
Tell us what needs to move.
Bring the brief if it is clear. If it is unclear, tell us where the work is stuck.
Bring us the problem