You Don't Have a Positioning Problem. You Have a Sequencing Problem.
A brand strategy can only be effective if the business is ready to accept it.
The Pattern Everyone Recognizes
The company employs an agency that conducts a brand sprint during which new positioning is developed. A tagline is created, and the logo is updated. The team then supports the new direction.
Then eighteen months pass. The position hasn't been adopted. The sales team is not employing the messaging. Prospects are not responding as they ought to. One person suggests that 'we might need to look over our brand strategy'.
And so it begins again.
The diagnosis is nearly always incorrect. There is no positioning problem with the company. The positioning they came up with was probably in the right direction. The issue wasn't with the strategy. The problem was in the order in which it was applied.
They addressed the correct problem at the wrong time and in the wrong sequence.
What Sequencing Actually Means
Brand strategy has dependencies: various factors must be in place before it can function.
A positioning statement describes the position a company holds in a customer's mind. Still, that position is built through numerous real interactions—such as the sales conversation, the onboarding experience, the service model, the product behavior, and the pricing logic. If those elements are not defined, are inconsistent, or are still evolving, the positioning statement has no solid basis.
The same error occurs. Instead of first defining how they operate, companies try to define how they are perceived. The message comes about before the machine to support it has actually been built.
The Three Sequencing Errors
01 — Positioning before the offer is stable
If the fundamental service model continues to change—in terms of scope, delivery, pricing, or indeed who carries out the work—then any positioning based on that model is by definition only temporary. Whenever the offer changes, so do the positioning and brand work, and it has to be started again.
It is most common in companies in the early stages of development and in organizations that have recently changed their business models without formally acknowledging the change; in such cases, they try to describe the company they intend to become rather than the one they currently are.
02 — Positioning before the sales motion is defined
The brand strategy and the sales strategy have to be aligned in sequence, rather than developed side by side and brought together later. The way a company is positioned influences how potential customers understand what it does and why it is important to them. Still, if the sales team has not committed to a clear course of action—such as who they call, what they say, and how they qualify—there will be no downstream system to receive the positioning.
The outcome is that the marketing department produces messaging which the sales team disregards. The sales team then creates their own way of describing the company, one that is not linked to the branding efforts. Within the organization, both the marketing and sales teams think that the other is handling things incorrectly.
03 — Positioning before internal clarity exists
Positioning is a statement made to the outside world; it informs the market of who you are and why you are important. However, this statement must first be understandable within the company before it can be put into practice. Should the leadership not agree on the company's true competitive advantage—not just in an aspirational sense but in an operational one—then the positioning will break down as soon as it moves beyond the agency's presentation.
It is here that most brand exercises fail silently. Although the deliverable was technically sound, the issue did not lie with audience reception; the problem was that those who were in charge of carrying out the exercise had not reached an agreement on what the company essentially was.
The Right Sequence
A proper brand strategy must adhere to a definite sequence and cannot be omitted or shortened.
Step 1
Business Architecture
Explain how the business functions: the products or services you provide, the customers you serve, the means by which you create value, and the specific actions that differ from others'. This should cover the offer architecture, the pricing strategy, the criteria used to select clients, and the real competitive advantage (not merely aspirational). David Aaker referred to this as setting up the brand identity system – a set of fundamental associations that the organization must commit to before any external expression is made.
Step 2
Sales Motion
Until positioning is finalized, the sales team needs to clarify who the true buyer is, what decision they are actually making, and what constitutes a qualified lead. The answers to these questions decide which elements of the brand strategy are essential and which are merely optional. Positioning that fails to align with a defined sales process is just a hypothesis, not a strategy.
Step 3
Message Architecture
Only after the offer has become stable and the sales process has been established should positioning be developed. It should not be done the other way around. At this stage, message architecture is not a creative activity but rather the process of translating the business architecture into language that the market can understand. As Urde stated in his framework on brand orientation, brand strategy must be guided from within the organization and then directed outward, rather than developed inwardly based on perceived market demand.
Step 4
Visual Expression
Design, the choice of name, and visual identity are dealt with last every time. Although they are the most visible parts of a brand strategy, making them the most tempting to begin with, they are also the most fragile. A logo based on a shaky offer has to be rebuilt if the offer changes, and visual expression that comes before a clear strategy results in aesthetics devoid of meaning.
Design is the aspect of brand strategy that is most obvious and at the same time the most fragile; it has to be the final one.
How to Diagnose Your Own Sequencing Problem
The signs are consistent across companies of every size:
The sales team has developed its own way of describing the company, which is distinct from the brand platform.
The way it is positioned seems right in the boardroom but has no effect in the market.
Leaders quietly differ on what the company's true competitive advantage is.
There has been a rebranding over the past three years, and the company is now considering whether it needs one more.
Although the basic offering has been altered since the previous brand strategy was developed, no one has officially acknowledged it.
When three or more of them are true, the problem isn't about positioning. It's about sequence.
The Decision That Breaks the Cycle
Ries and Trout claimed that positioning is either won or lost in the prospect's mind, and that remains the case. However, the prospect's mind is influenced by all the interactions your company has with it—such as the first sales call, the proposal, onboarding, invoicing, and service recovery. If the company does not fight consistently across all these areas, then positioning cannot win the battle for the mind.
The initial choice isn't about determining our positioning.
The first thing to decide is whether our offer is stable enough to position.
If the answer is no, further brand strategy will be of no use. What will help is stabilizing the offer. If you say yes, then the next question should be: 'Does our sales team have a defined approach that brand strategy can link to?'
Go through the sequence; the positioning problem will sort itself out.
The question is never about what our positioning ought to be; it is always about whether we are ready to position.
Successful brand work is always developed in the correct sequence.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. Free Press. ISBN: 978-0-02-900151-6https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Building-Strong-Brands/David-A-Aaker/9780029001516
Urde, M. (2013). Brand orientation: Past, present, and future. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9-10), 973–980.https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.817768
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1981). Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. McGraw-Hill.https://www.amazon.com/Positioning-Battle-Your-Mind-Anniversary/dp/0071359168
Some ideas are worth discussing in the context of your organization.
