What would you have to believe for positioning to be more important than product?
I’ve been asking this question for 20 years. To Fortune 500 CEOs. To startup founders. To myself.
Most people think it’s a ridiculous question. Of course products matter more. Products are real. Products solve problems. Products create value.
Positioning? That’s just… marketing. Right?
Here’s what changed my mind:
Volvo hasn’t made the safest car in years. Check the crash test ratings — Genesis, Mazda, and Subaru all score higher. Yet when you think “safety,” you think Volvo. They own that mental real estate so completely that safer cars are described as “as safe as a Volvo.”
That’s not marketing. That’s mental monopoly.
And it’s worth billions.
The $2.1 Billion T-Shirt
Let me tell you about Supreme.
Started in 1994 as a skateboard shop on Lafayette Street in Manhattan. Today, valued at $2.1 billion.
They sell t-shirts. Cotton shirts with a logo. The same cotton your $10 Target shirt uses.
But here’s what Supreme understood that the failed startup didn’t: You don’t win by making better products. You win by owning mental territory.
Supreme doesn’t compete on quality, features, or even design. They compete on authenticity. They own “streetwear culture” in your mind.
Their strategy breaks every product-first rule:
- They deliberately underproduce (creating scarcity)
- They refuse traditional advertising (maintaining authenticity)
- They limit distribution (one store per major city)
- They collaborate with everyone from Louis Vuitton to Oreo (expanding cultural relevance)
The result? Kids camp overnight for a t-shirt. A brick—yes, a brick—with their logo sold for $1,000 on eBay.
That’s not product superiority. That’s position dominance.
Your Brain Doesn’t Have a Spreadsheet
Here’s what product-focused founders miss: Humans aren’t rational beings making logical decisions. We’re feeling machines that think.
This isn’t my opinion. It’s neuroscience.
Antonio Damasio, one of the world’s leading neuroscientists, proved this in his landmark research. Patients with damage to emotional centers of their brains could analyze decisions perfectly (list pros and cons, evaluate options, understand consequences). But they couldn’t actually decide. Without emotion, there is no decision.
Your customers aren’t comparing features in spreadsheets. They’re asking: “What does choosing this say about me?”
When someone buys a Tesla with panel gaps you could fit a finger through, they’re not buying transportation. They’re buying into the identity of an environmental pioneer.
When someone pays $200 for a Supreme t-shirt, they’re not buying clothing. They’re buying cultural membership.
When a company chooses Salesforce despite better and cheaper alternatives, they’re not buying software. They’re buying transformation credibility.
The Physics of Perception
Products live in the physical world. They obey physics. Materials degrade. Manufacturing has limits. Features can be copied.
Positions live in minds. They obey different rules entirely.
In the physical world, two objects can’t occupy the same space. In mental space, once someone owns territory, it’s nearly impossible to displace them.
Volvo owns “safety” in your mind. Has for decades.
Other car companies make safer cars. They have better crash test ratings. More advanced safety features. Doesn’t matter.
When you think safety, you think Volvo. They own that mental real estate.
BMW could build the safest car in history tomorrow. In your mind, it would still be “the safe BMW” — a description, not an identity. Volvo IS safety. BMW HAS safety features.
That’s the difference between owning a noun and being an adjective.
The Prism Principle
I learned this working with a Fortune 500 CEO who was struggling with positioning. “We need different positioning for different segments,” he insisted. “Enterprise wants ROI. SMBs want simplicity. Developers want flexibility.”
Wrong.
Positioning isn’t multiple messages for multiple audiences. It’s one identity refracted through a prism. White light enters a prism as one beam. It exits as a spectrum—red, blue, green, yellow. Different colours, same source.
Your positioning works the same way. One core identity refracts differently for different audiences:
- Engineers see technical excellence
- Executives see strategic advantage
- End users see personal empowerment
But it’s all coming from the same source: your singular position.
Apple doesn’t change its position for different customers. “Creative innovation” refracts as:
- Professional creative tools for designers
- Intuitive experiences for consumers
- Premium status for luxury buyers
- Ecosystem lock-in for enterprises
Same position. Different perceptions. One identity.
The Product-Led Growth Delusion
Silicon Valley has a new religion: Product-Led Growth (PLG).
Build a great product. Users will discover it. Growth will follow. Positioning comes later.
This is backwards.
PLG works tactically for distribution. It fails strategically for dominance.
Slack had perfect PLG. Great product. Viral growth. Beloved by users.
Microsoft Teams was inferior. Clunky. Feature-poor. Users complained constantly.
Guess who won?
Microsoft didn’t compete on product. They competed on position. They owned “integrated workplace,” while Slack owned “better chat.”
When IT departments evaluated options, “integrated workplace” mattered more than “better chat.” Position beat product.
Slack sold for $27B to Salesforce. Impressive?
Microsoft Teams is worth $100B+ as part of Office 365.
That’s a $73B positioning premium.
The 70% Failure Mystery Solved
70% of startups fail to scale beyond $10M ARR.
Most blame product-market fit. They’re solving the wrong problem.
I call it “positioning debt” — accumulated misalignment between what you make and what you mean.
Every feature you add without clear positioning increases this debt. Every pivot without position clarity compounds it. Every sales message that emphasizes different benefits fragments it.
Eventually, you’re everything and nothing. Feature-rich and meaning-poor.
I watched a startup burn through $30M building “the most comprehensive platform” in their space. 158 features. 12 integration partners. 4 pricing tiers.
They couldn’t answer: “What do you own in the customer’s mind?”
Their competitor could: “Simple compliance.”
Two words. One position. The competitor sold for $500M.
Creating Categories vs. Competing in Them
Most companies compete within categories. The winners create them.
Red Bull didn’t compete as a better soft drink. They created “energy drinks.”
Cirque du Soleil didn’t compete as a better circus. They created “theatrical circus.”
Dollar Shave Club didn’t compete as better razors. They created “subscription grooming.”
Category creators capture 76% of the total market cap in their categories. That’s not from Play Bigger’s book (that’s from their analysis of every venture-backed company from 2000-2015).
But here’s what they don’t tell you: Category creation isn’t about products. It’s about language.
Apple refused to call the iPod an “MP3 player.” They called it a “digital music player.”
Seems trivial?
“MP3 player” was a technical description competing on storage and battery life. “Digital music player” was a lifestyle category about “1,000 songs in your pocket.”
Control the language, control the category. Control the category, control the market.
The Noun Test
Want to know if you have positioning or just messaging? Apply the Noun Test.
Messaging uses adjectives: “We’re innovative.” “We’re secure.” “We’re fast.”
Positioning owns nouns: “We are innovation.” “We are security.” “We are speed.”
Tesla doesn’t make “sustainable cars.” Tesla is sustainability.
Amazon doesn’t provide “convenient shopping.” Amazon is convenience.
Google doesn’t offer “comprehensive search.” Google is search itself.
When you own a noun, competitors can only use adjectives. They become derivative by definition.
That’s why “We’re like Uber for X” is an admission of positioning failure. You’re borrowing someone else’s noun because you don’t own one yourself.
The Identity Stack
Positioning works at three levels of identity:
Personal Identity: Who am I?
- Harley riders aren’t buying motorcycles. They’re buying rebellion identity.
- Peloton users aren’t buying exercise equipment. They’re buying achiever identity.
- Patagonia customers aren’t buying jackets. They’re buying environmental identity.
Group Identity: Where do I belong?
- CrossFit isn’t selling fitness. They’re selling tribal belonging.
- Linux isn’t providing an OS. They’re providing ideological community.
- Supreme isn’t making clothes. They’re gatekeeping cultural membership.
Aspirational Identity: Who do I want to become?
- Harvard Business School doesn’t teach business. They sell transformation into “leader.”
- Tony Robbins doesn’t offer advice. He sells evolution into “peak performer.”
- Tesla doesn’t sell transportation. They sell evolution into “future pioneer.”
Products operate at one level. Positions operate at all three.
The B2B Myth
“But we’re B2B. Positioning is different for us.”
No. You just have better excuses.
B2B buyers are still humans. They still have emotions, identities, and aspirations. They just hide them behind ROI calculations and vendor comparisons.
Salesforce doesn’t sell CRM. They sell “customer success” identity.
Zoom doesn’t sell video conferencing. They own “connection simplicity.”
Stripe doesn’t provide payment processing. They own “developer elegance.”
Their customers could find cheaper alternatives with more features. But those alternatives don’t provide identity alignment.
The CFO choosing Salesforce isn’t just buying software. They’re buying transformation credibility with their board.
The CTO choosing Stripe isn’t just buying payments. They’re signaling technical sophistication to their team.
B2B positioning isn’t different. It’s just dressed in suits instead of streetwear.
The Pull Method
Most positioning is “pushed” onto companies by consultants with frameworks. It feels artificial because it is.
Real positioning is “pulled” from what’s already true but unexpressed.
I worked with a consulting firm struggling with positioning. They’d tried everything:
- “Innovation consultants” (everyone claimed innovation)
- “Digital transformation experts” (saturated category)
- “Strategy consultants” (competing with McKinsey? Good luck)
During our session, the CEO mentioned offhand, “We’re probably the only firm that measures happiness alongside revenue. Weird, right?”
That was it. Hidden in plain sight.
They weren’t innovation consultants. They pioneered “Sustainable Performance” — the radical idea that employee wellbeing drives long-term results.
They didn’t invent this position. They discovered it. It was already true in their actions, contracts, and client results. They just hadn’t claimed it.
Six months later, they landed their largest client ever. The client said: “We didn’t know this category existed, but once we saw it, we couldn’t unsee it.”
That’s pull positioning. Not imposed. Revealed.
The Positioning Paradox
Here’s the paradox that breaks most founders’ brains:
The less you try to be, the more you become.
Supreme became a $2.1B brand by refusing to be a brand. No advertising. No marketing department. No growth hacks.
In-N-Out Burger dominates California with a 4-item menu while McDonald’s struggles with 100+ items.
Craigslist owns classifieds with a website that hasn’t changed since 1995.
Basecamp thrives by explicitly rejecting features their customers request.
They all understand something profound: Positioning isn’t about addition. It’s about subtraction.
Every position you claim weakens your primary position. Every audience you target dilutes your core audience. Every feature you add that doesn’t reinforce your position undermines it.
Most companies die from indigestion, not starvation. They eat every opportunity instead of owning one position.
The Strategic Question
So back to our original question: What would you have to believe for positioning to be more important than product?
You’d have to believe:
- Markets are made of minds, not wallets
- Perception creates reality, not the reverse
- Identity drives behaviour more than utility
- Ownership beats optimization
- Meaning matters more than features
- Categories are created, not discovered
- Less is strategically more
- Clarity compounds faster than capability
These aren’t feel-good beliefs. They’re strategic principles backed by neuroscience, behavioural economics, and market evidence.
The Choice
You have two paths:
Path 1: Product First
- Build more features
- Chase product-market fit
- Compete on capabilities
- Fight for differentiation
- Hope for viral growth
- Join the 70% who fail to scale
Path 2: Position First
- Own mental territory
- Create category clarity
- Compete on meaning
- Build identity alignment
- Design for resonance
- Join the few who dominate
Most will choose Path 1. It feels safer. More tangible. More “serious.”
They’ll build beautiful products that no one remembers, fighting feature wars they can’t win, in categories they don’t define, for customers who don’t care.
The few who choose Path 2 will do less but mean more.
They won’t have the best products. They’ll own the best positions.
And in 10 years, the Path 1 companies will be case studies in business schools.
The Path 2 companies will be buying them.
The real question isn’t whether positioning matters more than product.
The question is: What position will you claim before your competitor does?
Because in the end, markets aren’t won by who builds the most.
They’re won by who means the most.
And meaning (true, owned, defended meaning) can’t be copied, can’t be disrupted, and can’t be forgotten.
It can only be claimed.
What are you waiting for?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.