Sales called me furious. "We just lost a deal because our messaging doesn't match what Product is saying. The prospect said we're confusing."
I investigated. Three different versions of our positioning existed across our website, sales decks, and product documentation. Nobody knew which was official.
Meanwhile, our competitive intel program had a different problem. We were tracking competitors and creating battle cards, but most sales reps didn't know they existed or where to find them.
When they did find them, they were often outdated. No single owner. No update cadence. No approval process for changes.
We had information chaos. Multiple sources of truth, no governance framework, and frustrated stakeholders.
The VP Marketing said: "We need governance. Figure it out."
I spent the next quarter building governance frameworks for messaging and competitive intelligence. Not bureaucratic processes that slow teams down—lightweight frameworks that create clarity without overhead.
Here's what actually worked.
The Problem: Everyone Creating Their Own Truth
Before governance:
Messaging chaos:
- Product team wrote messaging for release notes
- Marketing created website copy
- Sales used their own pitch deck
- PMM had "official" messaging docs
- All four versions said different things
Example disaster:
Website: "Enterprise-grade workflow automation for modern teams"
Sales deck: "The simplest way to automate repetitive tasks"
Product release notes: "Advanced process orchestration platform"
PMM messaging doc: "Workflow automation that scales with your business"
Same product. Four different value propositions. Customers were confused.
Competitive intel chaos:
- Five different PMMs created battle cards in different formats
- No single repository (some in Google Drive, some in Notion, some in Slack)
- No update process (battle cards from 2 years ago still floating around)
- No way to know what was current vs. outdated
Sales reps would google "Competitor X battle card" and find three different versions. They'd use whichever one came up first, often the outdated one.
The root cause: No governance framework.
Nobody knew:
- Who owns messaging decisions?
- What's the approval process?
- Where is the source of truth?
- How do we keep content current?
- Who can make changes?
The Messaging Governance Framework We Built
Governance principle: Clarity on who owns what, where truth lives, and how changes happen.
Layer 1: Ownership and Decision Rights
We documented who owns messaging at different levels:
Level 1: Company Positioning
- Owner: CMO + CEO
- What: Company mission, vision, and value prop
- Approval: Requires exec team alignment
- Change frequency: Annually, or during major pivots
Level 2: Product Messaging
- Owner: PMM (with Product input)
- What: Product positioning, key messages, value props
- Approval: CMO + VP Product
- Change frequency: Quarterly, or with major launches
Level 3: Feature Messaging
- Owner: PMM + Product Manager
- What: Feature-level positioning and benefits
- Approval: PMM Director
- Change frequency: With each product release
Level 4: Campaign Messaging
- Owner: Demand Gen (using L2/L3 messaging)
- What: Campaign-specific headlines and CTAs
- Approval: PMM review for consistency
- Change frequency: Per campaign
This created hierarchy: Company → Product → Feature → Campaign.
Each level builds on the level above. You can't change Product messaging without ensuring it aligns with Company positioning.
Layer 2: The Single Source of Truth
Before: Messaging scattered across 20+ documents in Google Drive and Notion.
After: Single messaging hub in Notion.
Structure:
Messaging Hub (Notion)
├── Company Messaging (L1)
│ ├── Mission and Vision
│ ├── Company Value Props
│ └── Brand Voice and Tone
├── Product Messaging (L2)
│ ├── Product Positioning Framework
│ ├── Core Value Props
│ ├── Target Personas and Jobs to Be Done
│ └── Messaging by Persona
├── Feature Messaging (L3)
│ ├── [Feature A] Positioning and Benefits
│ ├── [Feature B] Positioning and Benefits
│ └── [All Features organized by product]
└── Campaign Messaging (L4)
├── Active Campaigns
└── Campaign Message Testing Results
The rule: If it's not in the Messaging Hub, it's not official.
Sales can't create their own messaging. Product can't write their own value props. Marketing pulls from the hub or it's wrong.
Layer 3: The Approval Workflow
For major messaging changes (L1-L2):
Step 1: Draft (PMM creates proposal)
- Research-backed (customer interviews, competitive analysis)
- Clear rationale for change
- Before/after comparison
Step 2: Review (Stakeholders provide input)
- Product team: Technical accuracy
- Sales team: Market resonance and objection handling
- Marketing team: Campaign fit and brand alignment
Step 3: Approval (Decision makers sign off)
- L1 changes: CMO + CEO approval
- L2 changes: CMO + VP Product approval
- Documented decision and rationale
Step 4: Rollout (Cascade changes across all materials)
- Update Messaging Hub (source of truth)
- Update website, sales decks, product docs
- Announce in Slack, train sales team
- Archive old messaging with "deprecated" flag
For minor messaging changes (L3-L4):
- PMM approves (no exec sign-off needed)
- Update Messaging Hub
- Notify affected teams in Slack
This prevented constant re-litigation of messaging while allowing tactical flexibility.
Layer 4: The Messaging Consistency Checklist
Every quarter, we audit all customer-facing content for messaging consistency:
Audit checklist: ☐ Website homepage uses current L1 company messaging ☐ Product pages use current L2 product messaging ☐ Sales decks match Messaging Hub ☐ Product documentation aligns with official feature messaging ☐ Email campaigns use approved messaging ☐ Case studies reflect current positioning
Process:
- PMM team divides audit responsibilities
- Document inconsistencies in shared spreadsheet
- Prioritize fixes (customer-facing first)
- Update content within 2 weeks
This catches messaging drift before it becomes chaos.
The Competitive Intel Governance Framework
Governance principle: Current, accessible, actionable competitive intelligence that sales actually uses.
Component 1: The Competitive Intel Repository
Before: Battle cards scattered across Google Drive, Notion, Slack, and people's computers.
After: Single competitive intel workspace in Notion.
Structure:
Competitive Intelligence Hub
├── Active Competitors (Top 5)
│ ├── [Competitor A]
│ │ ├── Company Overview
│ │ ├── Product Comparison
│ │ ├── Pricing Analysis
│ │ ├── Battle Card (sales-facing)
│ │ ├── Win/Loss Data
│ │ └── Recent Updates (log)
│ └── [One folder per active competitor]
├── Emerging Competitors (Watch List)
├── Win/Loss Analysis
│ ├── Quarterly Reviews
│ └── Deal Post-Mortems
└── Competitive News Feed
└── Weekly Updates
The rule: All competitive intel lives here. If it's elsewhere, it's not official.
Component 2: The Update Cadence and Ownership
Before: Battle cards updated "whenever someone had time" (i.e., rarely).
After: Structured update schedule with clear owners.
Ownership model:
Each top competitor assigned to one PMM:
- Competitor A: Sarah (Primary Owner)
- Competitor B: Mike (Primary Owner)
- Competitor C: Emma (Primary Owner)
Primary owner responsibilities:
- Monitor competitor for changes (product, pricing, messaging, funding)
- Update battle card monthly (even if no major changes)
- Conduct deep analysis quarterly
- Lead win/loss review sessions
Update cadence:
Weekly: Competitive news feed (all owners contribute) Monthly: Battle card refresh (primary owner updates, team reviews) Quarterly: Deep dive analysis (primary owner presents to team) Ad-hoc: Breaking news (primary owner updates within 48 hours)
The "Last Updated" field:
Every battle card shows:
- Last reviewed: [Date]
- Last updated: [Date]
- Next review date: [Date]
Sales knows if content is current or stale.
Component 3: The Battle Card Approval Process
Before: Anyone could create a battle card. Quality varied wildly.
After: Structured creation and approval process.
Battle card creation workflow:
Step 1: Research (Primary owner)
- Competitor analysis (product, pricing, positioning)
- Customer feedback (win/loss data)
- Market intelligence (analyst reports, reviews, news)
Step 2: Draft (Using standard template)
- Executive summary (elevator pitch)
- Key differentiators (why we win)
- Competitive weaknesses (where they're vulnerable)
- How to compete (talk tracks and positioning)
- Objection handling (common concerns and responses)
- Proof points (customer stories, data, testimonials)
Step 3: Review (Cross-functional)
- Sales review: Is this useful in actual deals?
- Product review: Technical accuracy
- PMM team review: Positioning alignment
Step 4: Approval and publish
- PMM Director approves
- Published to Competitive Intel Hub
- Announced in #sales-enablement Slack channel
- Added to sales onboarding
No battle card gets published without approval. Quality control prevents bad competitive positioning.
Component 4: The Distribution and Training System
Before: Battle cards sat in Notion. Sales didn't know they existed.
After: Proactive distribution and training.
Distribution strategy:
New battle card published:
- Slack announcement in #sales-enablement
- Link directly to battle card in Notion
- 1-sentence summary of key differentiators
- Tag relevant sales reps (enterprise team, SMB team, etc.)
Monthly competitive briefing:
- 30-minute session with sales team
- Review competitive landscape changes
- Practice objection handling
- Q&A on specific deals
Embedded in sales onboarding:
- New reps must review all battle cards
- Complete quiz on key differentiators
- Role-play competitive scenarios
- Certification required
CRM integration:
- Link to battle cards from opportunity records in Salesforce
- When competitor tagged, relevant battle card auto-suggested
This changed battle cards from "hidden documents" to "actively used tools."
Component 5: The Feedback Loop
Before: PMM created competitive intel in a vacuum. No idea if it was useful.
After: Continuous feedback from sales.
Feedback mechanisms:
Battle card ratings:
- After using battle card in deal, sales rates it 1-5 stars
- Comments section for "what was helpful/missing"
- Tracked in quarterly competitive review
Win/loss interviews:
- Ask specifically: "Did you use our battle card? Was it helpful?"
- Document what worked and what didn't
- Feed insights back to PMM for updates
Monthly sales survey:
- "How useful is our competitive intelligence?" (1-10 scale)
- "What competitive information are you missing?"
- "Which competitors need better coverage?"
Usage analytics:
- Track battle card views in Notion
- Identify which ones are used vs. ignored
- Deprioritize competitors nobody's competing against
This created data-driven competitive intelligence instead of guesswork.
The Governance Rituals That Made It Work
Weekly: Competitive Intelligence Standup (30 min)
- Each competitor owner shares weekly updates
- Flag major changes (product launches, pricing changes, funding)
- Update competitive news feed
Monthly: Messaging and Competitive Review (60 min)
- Review messaging consistency audit results
- Review battle card usage and feedback
- Identify updates needed for next month
Quarterly: Strategic Governance Review (2 hours)
- Deep analysis of competitive landscape changes
- Messaging framework review (is positioning still relevant?)
- Governance process review (is framework working or too bureaucratic?)
For Teams Managing Growing PMM Content**
As PMM teams scale, maintaining governance over messaging, competitive intelligence, and launch materials across multiple systems becomes unwieldy. Some teams find value in consolidating governance workflows into integrated platforms that provide version control, approval workflows, and single-source-of-truth repositories. For example, platforms like Segment8 demonstrate how messaging governance, competitive intelligence updates, and content approval processes can be centralized—reducing the operational overhead of maintaining governance across fragmented tools and documents.
What Good Governance Actually Delivered
Before governance:
Messaging:
- 4+ versions of positioning across teams
- Sales using outdated messaging
- Customer confusion about value prop
- 8 hours/week fixing messaging inconsistencies
Competitive intel:
- Battle cards 6-12 months outdated
- Sales creating their own competitive docs
- 40% of reps didn't know battle cards existed
- Lost deals due to poor competitive positioning
After governance:
Messaging:
- Single source of truth (Messaging Hub)
- All teams using same positioning
- Quarterly audits catch drift early
- 1 hour/week maintaining consistency
Competitive intel:
- Battle cards updated monthly
- 85% sales usage rate
- Win rate vs. top competitor up 12 points
- Sales NPS on competitive intel: 8.5/10
Time savings: ~35 hours per month across team Quality improvement: Measurable increase in messaging consistency and competitive win rates
The Uncomfortable Truth About Governance
Most PMM teams resist governance because they think it means bureaucracy and red tape.
The fear: "Governance will slow us down."
The reality: Lack of governance slows you down more.
Without governance:
- Teams create their own versions of truth
- Constant debates about what messaging to use
- Outdated content confuses customers
- Sales doesn't trust competitive intel
With lightweight governance:
- Clear decision rights (who owns what)
- Single source of truth (no version confusion)
- Update cadences that keep content fresh
- Approval workflows that ensure quality
The teams that scale messaging and competitive intelligence:
- Document ownership and decision rights
- Build single source of truth (Notion, wiki, or dedicated platform)
- Create update cadences with accountable owners
- Implement approval workflows (light, not bureaucratic)
- Measure usage and feedback, iterate on process
The teams that drown in chaos:
- No documented ownership
- Content scattered across tools
- No update process
- Everyone can publish anything
- No measurement of usage or effectiveness
Governance isn't bureaucracy. It's clarity.
Who owns decisions? Where does truth live? How do changes happen? Who can make updates?
Answer those questions and document them. That's governance.
Build the framework. Maintain the discipline. Watch messaging consistency and competitive intelligence effectiveness improve.