The CEO asked me to create a competitive positioning map for the board deck. I spent three days building a beautiful 2x2 matrix. X-axis: simple to powerful. Y-axis: affordable to premium.
I plotted all seven competitors. Us in the sweet spot (of course). Competitors scattered strategically around us. Color-coded circles. Clean typography. It looked professional.
The CEO used it in the board presentation. The board nodded. Everyone moved on.
Two weeks later, I was in a sales call. The rep was explaining our competitive positioning. Nothing they said matched my positioning map. They were using completely different axes, different language, different logic.
I realized my positioning map was a beautiful artifact that nobody actually used. It lived in a deck, not in people's heads.
That failure taught me something critical: Positioning maps aren't valuable because they're analytically rigorous or visually appealing. They're valuable when they become the default mental model your team uses to think about and discuss competition.
If your positioning map doesn't change how people talk, it doesn't matter.
I rebuilt my approach from scratch. Not around making better 2x2 matrices, but around making positioning maps that embed themselves in company language and decision-making.
Here's what actually works.
Why Most Positioning Maps Fail
The typical positioning map process:
- PMM picks two axes (usually generic: price vs. features)
- PMM plots competitors based on their best judgment
- PMM makes it pretty in PowerPoint
- PMM presents it once in a slide deck
- Everyone forgets it existed
The map gets filed away. Sales keeps using their old mental models. Product keeps making decisions without reference to competitive positioning. The map was a deliverable, not a tool.
The problem isn't the 2x2 format. The problem is that positioning maps are built for presentations instead of for repeated use.
A useful positioning map has three characteristics:
Characteristic 1: The axes reflect how customers actually differentiate options
Not how you wish they differentiated. Not academic frameworks. Not generic "simple vs. complex." But the actual dimensions customers use when comparing solutions.
Characteristic 2: The map is simple enough to remember and explain verbally
If someone can't recreate your positioning map from memory in a conversation, it's too complex. Useful maps are memorable.
Characteristic 3: The map gets used repeatedly in multiple contexts
Sales uses it in competitive calls. Product uses it in roadmap discussions. Marketing uses it in messaging. Executives use it in strategy conversations. If it's only used once, it's not useful.
How to Pick Axes That Actually Matter
The axes make or break a positioning map. Wrong axes = useless map.
Most PMMs pick axes from their head: "I think customers care about simplicity vs. power." Maybe. Or maybe that's not how customers actually think about the space.
I learn axes from customers, not from brainstorming. Here's how:
Method 1: Win/loss interview analysis
When I interview customers who evaluated multiple solutions, I ask: "How did you think about the differences between the options you considered?"
I don't lead them. I let them describe their mental model.
One customer said: "I looked at whether the tool was built for technical teams or business teams, and whether it required a lot of setup or worked out of the box."
That's two axes right there:
- Axis 1: Built for technical users vs. built for business users
- Axis 2: Requires extensive setup vs. works out of the box
After 15-20 interviews, patterns emerge. Customers consistently use certain dimensions to differentiate:
- Speed of deployment vs. depth of customization
- Built for enterprise vs. built for mid-market
- Point solution vs. platform approach
- Technical users vs. non-technical users
These customer-derived axes are infinitely more useful than generic "price vs. features" because they reflect how buyers actually think.
Method 2: Sales conversation mining
I listen to 10-15 recorded sales calls where prospects are comparing us to competitors. What questions do prospects ask? What comparisons do they make?
Common patterns I've heard:
- "Is this more like Competitor X [enterprise, complex] or Competitor Y [simple, fast]?"
- "Do I need a developer to use this, or can my marketing team use it?"
- "Is this going to take months to implement like the other tools we've looked at?"
These questions reveal the axes in prospects' heads.
Method 3: Competitor messaging analysis
How do competitors position themselves? What axes are they using to differentiate?
If Competitor X constantly says "enterprise-grade" and Competitor Y constantly says "fast and simple," they've implicitly created an axis: enterprise-grade vs. fast/simple.
I map out how each competitor positions themselves and look for the underlying dimensions they're using.
Building the Map: A Real Example
Here's how I built the positioning map we actually use:
Step 1: Identified the axes from customer research
After 20 win/loss interviews, I found customers consistently differentiated solutions on two dimensions:
Axis 1 (X-axis): Generic project management → Purpose-built for GTM Customers asked: "Is this a generic PM tool I have to configure for launches, or is it built specifically for product marketing?"
Axis 2 (Y-axis): Configuration required → Works out of the box
Customers asked: "Will I spend weeks setting this up, or can I start using it immediately?"
These axes came directly from customer language, not from my head.
Step 2: Plotted competitors honestly
I placed each competitor on the map based on:
- How they position themselves
- How customers describe them in interviews
- How their product actually works (based on demos and trials)
Generic PM / High configuration:
- Asana (generic PM tool, requires extensive setup for GTM workflows)
- Monday.com (generic PM tool, customizable but requires configuration)
Generic PM / Works out of box:
- Trello (generic but simple, limited configuration needed)
GTM-specific / High configuration:
- Competitor X (PMM-focused but complex, requires implementation)
GTM-specific / Works out of box:
- Us (purpose-built for PMM, pre-built templates)
Step 3: Made it verbally explainable
The map needed to work in conversations, not just in slides. I created a 30-second verbal version:
"Most product marketing tools fall into one of four categories:
Generic PM tools that need heavy configuration—like Asana or Monday. They're powerful but require weeks of setup to work for GTM.
Generic PM tools that are simple but limited—like Trello. Fast to start but you hit limitations quickly.
GTM-specific tools that still require implementation—like [Competitor X]. They understand PMM but still take time to configure.
And purpose-built GTM tools that work out of the box—like us. You get PMM-specific workflows without the configuration burden.
Most companies are either in the top-left (generic + complex) or top-right (GTM-specific + complex). We're the only one in the bottom-right."
Sales can explain this in a customer call without showing a slide.
Step 4: Created simple visual versions for different contexts
I made three versions of the map:
Version 1: Executive version (for board decks, strategy docs)
- Clean 2x2 with competitor logos
- Minimal text, maximum clarity
- Focus on our unique position
Version 2: Sales version (for battlecards, competitive trainings)
- Same 2x2 but with annotations
- "Why we're here" explanations
- "Why competitors are there" explanations
- When to use this map in conversations
Version 3: Product version (for roadmap planning)
- Same 2x2 but with capability gaps highlighted
- Shows where competitors are investing
- Shows where we could move on the map with different product decisions
Same underlying map, different overlays for different audiences.
How to Embed the Map in Company Vocabulary
Building the map is 20% of the work. Getting people to use it is 80%.
Tactic 1: Train sales using the map
In monthly competitive training, I teach sales how to use the positioning map in customer conversations:
"When a prospect mentions they're evaluating Competitor X, here's how to position using the map:
'It sounds like you're looking at tools that understand GTM workflows—that makes sense. The question is whether you want a tool that requires significant implementation time or one that works out of the box. Competitor X is purpose-built for PMM, which is great, but most customers tell us implementation takes 4-6 weeks. We're also purpose-built for PMM, but you can run your first launch this week. What matters more to you—extensive customization or speed to first launch?'"
I role-play these scenarios until reps can naturally use the map in conversations.
Tactic 2: Use the map in product roadmap discussions
When product proposes new features, I reference the positioning map:
"This feature would move us further right on the 'GTM-specific' axis but might move us up on the 'configuration required' axis. Is that the tradeoff we want? Our current position is 'purpose-built + out of the box.' Let's make sure new features don't compromise the 'out of the box' positioning."
This makes the map a decision-making filter, not just a visualization.
Tactic 3: Reference the map in executive updates
In monthly exec updates, I reference competitive positioning using the map's language:
"Competitor X is investing heavily in customization features. They're moving further up the Y-axis toward 'configuration required.' This validates our positioning in the 'works out of the box' quadrant—they're not competing there."
Over time, executives start using the map's language in strategy discussions.
Tactic 4: Update the map quarterly and communicate changes
Every quarter, I review the map:
- Have any competitors moved? (new features, repositioning, acquisitions)
- Have market dynamics shifted?
- Should we adjust our position?
When I update the map, I post the changes to Slack:
"Q3 Competitive Positioning Update:
- Competitor Y launched no-code builder → moving down on 'configuration' axis
- Competitor X acquired by Enterprise Co → likely moving toward enterprise complexity
- Our position unchanged: GTM-specific + out of the box
Implication for sales: Competitor Y is trying to compete in our quadrant. Here's how to differentiate..."
This keeps the map alive and relevant.
Advanced Technique: Multiple Maps for Different Contexts
One positioning map can't serve all purposes. I maintain three different positioning maps:
Map 1: Market positioning map (for exec/board audiences) Axes: Generic PM → GTM-specific × Simple → Enterprise-grade Shows our position in the overall market landscape
Map 2: Feature capability map (for product team)
Axes: Launch management capabilities × Competitive intelligence capabilities
Shows where we lead and lag on specific capabilities
Map 3: Buyer segment map (for sales/marketing) Axes: SMB → Enterprise × First-time PMM → Mature PMM teams Shows which competitors win in which segments
Each map serves a different purpose. Together, they create a comprehensive competitive view.
Measuring Whether Your Map Actually Works
Most PMMs never measure if their positioning map is useful. I track three metrics:
Metric 1: Verbal adoption rate
I listen to sales calls and count how often reps reference the positioning framework (not necessarily showing the visual, but using the language and logic).
Target: 70%+ of competitive sales calls should reference the positioning framework.
Current: 80% of reps naturally use "generic vs. GTM-specific" and "configuration vs. out-of-box" language in calls.
Metric 2: Executive usage
How often do executives reference the positioning map in strategy discussions, board updates, or team meetings?
Target: Map referenced in 50%+ of competitive strategy discussions.
Current: CEO and CRO both regularly use the map's framing in exec meetings.
Metric 3: Win rate correlation
Do we win more often when sales uses the positioning framework vs. when they don't?
Current: Deals where reps used positioning framework → 68% win rate Deals where reps didn't use framework → 47% win rate
This justifies the time investment in building and training on the map.
For teams managing competitive positioning across multiple product lines or regions, platforms like Segment8 can centralize positioning frameworks and ensure consistent competitive messaging across the organization.
Common Mistakes That Make Maps Useless
Mistake 1: Picking axes based on what you wish differentiated you
You want to compete on "innovation" so you make that an axis. But customers don't use "innovation" as a buying criterion.
Fix: Derive axes from customer interviews, not from wishful thinking.
Mistake 2: Making the map too complex
I once created a 3-dimensional positioning map with 5 competitors. It was analytically sophisticated and completely unusable.
Fix: Keep it simple enough to explain verbally in 30 seconds.
Mistake 3: Being dishonest about competitor positions
I see maps where every competitor is in a bad quadrant and we're in the good one. This makes the map useless for actual decision-making.
Fix: Plot competitors honestly based on their real strengths. Acknowledge where they're strong.
Mistake 4: Creating the map once and never updating it
Markets shift. Competitors launch products. Your product evolves. A positioning map from two years ago is probably wrong.
Fix: Review quarterly. Update when meaningful changes happen. Communicate updates to stakeholders.
Why This Approach Works
I've created dozens of positioning maps in my career. Most got presented once and forgotten.
The maps that stuck—the ones that actually changed how teams talked about competition—all had the same characteristics:
- Axes came from customer language, not from PMM brainstorming
- The map was simple enough to remember and explain verbally
- I trained teams to use it repeatedly in different contexts
- I updated it regularly and communicated changes
The best positioning map I ever created was sketched on a whiteboard during a sales training session. A rep asked how to differentiate us from Competitor X. I drew two axes based on what customers had told me in interviews. The rep said "Oh, that makes sense. I can explain that."
That whiteboard sketch became our positioning framework for two years. Not because it was analytically rigorous or beautifully designed. Because it was simple, true, and useful.
Your positioning map doesn't need to be sophisticated. It needs to be used.