Why We Stopped Using Klue and Built Our Own System

"We're cancelling Klue," I told my boss. "I'm going to build our own competitive intelligence system instead."

She looked skeptical. "Build it ourselves? That's a lot of work."

"Klue isn't working," I said. "We're paying $18K for features we don't use. I can build exactly what we need."

She approved it.

I spent the next month "building our own system." What I actually did was migrate to a consolidated PMM platform that handled competitive intelligence as one integrated component instead of a standalone tool.

Six months later, I realized: "Building your own" doesn't mean coding from scratch. It means choosing the right foundation that matches your actual workflow.

The question isn't "build vs. buy." It's "specialized standalone tool vs. integrated workflow platform."

Most PMMs who "build their own" after cancelling Klue are actually choosing better integration over more features.

Why We Cancelled Klue

We'd used Klue for 18 months. The contract cost $18,000 annually.

What we used:

• Battle card storage (could do this in Google Docs)
• Competitor tracking (could do this in a spreadsheet)
• Win/loss categorization (could do this in Salesforce)

What we didn't use:

• Automated news monitoring (40 alerts/day, 95% noise)
• Competitor profiles (comprehensive 40-page docs nobody read)
• Advanced analytics (dashboards executives never checked)
• Content library (duplicate of what we had in Highspot)
• Stakeholder digests (I wrote custom summaries anyway)

We were using maybe 15% of Klue's features.

But the bigger problem wasn't unused features. It was workflow fragmentation.

Our actual competitive intelligence workflow:

1. Update competitive intelligence in Klue
2. Manually export to update battle cards in Highspot
3. Manually update messaging docs in Notion
4. Manually update sales decks in Google Slides
5. Manually update launch materials in Asana
6. Manually notify sales in Slack

Every competitive update required touching 6 different tools.

Klue handled step 1. Steps 2-6 were entirely manual.

We were paying $18K for Klue to manage 16% of our competitive intelligence workflow.

When renewal came up, I did the math:

Option 1: Renew Klue

• Cost: $18,000
• Covers: Competitive intelligence storage
• Still manual: Distributing CI to messaging, enablement, launches, sales

Option 2: Cancel Klue, "build our own"

• Cost: TBD
• Covers: Competitive intelligence + integration with messaging, enablement, launches
• Goal: Automate steps 2-6

I chose option 2.

What "Building Our Own" Actually Meant

When I said "build our own competitive intelligence system," I had vague ideas:

Initial plan:

• Competitive intelligence in Notion (free)
• Battle cards in Google Slides templates (free)
• Win/loss tracking in Salesforce reports (free)
• Competitive updates via Slack bot (build custom integration)

This would save $18K and give us exactly what we needed.

I started building:

Week 1: Set up Notion database

• Created competitor database
• Built battle card templates
• Set up win/loss tracking structure
• Time investment: 12 hours

Looked good. But then I tested the workflow:

Scenario: Competitor launches new feature

1. Update competitor database in Notion (15 min)
2. Update battle card template in Google Slides (30 min)
3. Export to PDF (5 min)
4. Upload to Google Drive (5 min)
5. Update messaging doc in Notion (45 min)
6. Update sales deck (1 hour)
7. Notify sales in Slack (10 min)

Total time: 3 hours

With Klue, same scenario: 3 hours (Klue didn't actually save time, just moved where work happened)

With "built our own" system: Still 3 hours

I hadn't solved the problem. I'd just moved from a paid tool to free tools with the same manual workflow.

The Realization: Integration Matters More Than Tools

After testing the "built our own" system, I had a realization:

The problem wasn't Klue. The problem was standalone competitive intelligence.

Whether competitive intelligence lived in Klue or Notion or Google Sheets didn't matter. What mattered was:

Did competitive intelligence integrate with messaging, enablement, and launches—or require manual updates across tools?

Klue: Standalone CI, manual distribution "Built our own" (Notion + Slides): Standalone CI, manual distribution Result: Same problem, different tools

I wasn't building our own system. I was recreating Klue's architecture using free tools.

What I actually needed: Competitive intelligence integrated with messaging and enablement so updates propagate automatically.

That's not "build your own." That's "choose better integration."

The Consolidated Platform Approach

After realizing my "build our own" plan was just "Klue with free tools," I researched a different approach:

Consolidated PMM platforms that treat competitive intelligence as one component of integrated workflow, not standalone.

For teams in this situation, platforms like Segment8 demonstrate an integrated approach that consolidates:

• Competitive intelligence (battle cards, tracking, win/loss)
• Messaging frameworks (positioning that feeds battle cards)
• Launch coordination (competitive positioning per launch)
• Sales enablement (auto-generate assets from CI + messaging)

The key difference:

Standalone approach (Klue or "built our own"):

• Competitive intelligence in one place
• Messaging in another place
• Enablement in another place
• Manual updates across all three

Integrated approach:

• Competitive intelligence, messaging, enablement in one system
• Update competitive positioning once
• Battle cards, messaging docs, enablement assets auto-update

This wasn't "building our own." But it also wasn't buying another standalone tool.

It was choosing a different architecture: integrated instead of fragmented.

How the "Actually Integrated" Approach Works

The typical workflow with integrated platforms:

Setup:

• Import competitive intelligence from existing system (~3 hours)
• Build messaging frameworks (~4 hours)
• Connect to Salesforce (~15 minutes)
• Set up battle card templates (~1 hour)

Total setup: ~8 hours

Real workflow example:

Scenario: Competitor launches new feature, need to update positioning

With Klue + "built our own" tools:

1. Update Klue (15 min)
2. Update battle cards in Slides (30 min)
3. Update messaging in Notion (45 min)
4. Update sales deck (60 min)
5. Update launch materials if active launch (30 min)
6. Notify sales (10 min) Total: 3 hours

With consolidated platform:

1. Update competitive positioning framework (20 min)
2. Battle cards auto-regenerate from positioning
3. Messaging docs auto-update
4. Sales enablement auto-updates
5. Launch materials auto-update if active launch
6. Sales notification auto-sent Total: 20 minutes

Potential time savings: 87%

This isn't about features. It's about workflow architecture.

Battle card creation scenario:

New competitor enters market. Need battle card from scratch.

With "built our own" (Notion + Slides):

1. Create competitor profile in Notion (1 hour)
2. Research competitive positioning (1.5 hours)
3. Build battle card in Slides template (1 hour)
4. Review and iterate (30 min)
5. Export and distribute (15 min) Total: 4 hours

With consolidated platform:

1. Create competitor profile (30 min)
2. Add competitive positioning to framework (45 min)
3. Battle card auto-generates from framework (5 min)
4. Review and iterate (15 min)
5. One-click export to PDF, Slides, Salesforce (1 min) Total: 1.5 hours

Potential time savings: 62%

Cost comparison:

"Built our own" with free tools:

• Tool cost: $0
• Weekly time: 8 hours (same as before Klue)
• Annual cost: 8 hours × 50 weeks × $80/hour = $32,000 in time
• Total: $32,000/year

Consolidated platform:

• Reported cost: ~$2,400/year
• Weekly time: ~3 hours (CI + messaging + enablement integrated)
• Annual cost: 3 hours × 50 weeks × $80/hour = $12,000 in time
• Total: $14,400/year

The "built our own with free tools" can be 2x more expensive than consolidated platforms when including time investment.

What "Building Your Own" Actually Looks Like

After this experience, I realized "building your own" has multiple meanings:

What I thought it meant:

• Code custom software
• Build databases and automations from scratch
• Own the entire technology stack

What it actually meant:

• Choose a foundation that matches your workflow
• Configure it for your specific needs
• Own the system architecture, not the code

Example:

Option A: "Build from scratch"

• Code custom competitive intelligence database
• Build automation scripts for battle card generation
• Write integrations for Salesforce, Slack, etc.
• Time investment: 200+ hours
• Maintenance: Ongoing
• Result: Custom software that breaks when you leave

Option B: "Build our own with free tools"

• Use Notion for database
• Use Google Slides for templates
• Use Zapier for some automation
• Time investment: 40 hours setup
• Maintenance: Moderate
• Result: Frankenstack that requires manual work

Option C: "Build our own on the right foundation"

• Choose consolidated platform that integrates CI + messaging + enablement
• Configure for your specific workflow
• Customize battle card templates, messaging frameworks, etc.
• Time investment: 8 hours setup
• Maintenance: Low (platform handles infrastructure)
• Result: Integrated system that works how you think

I chose Option C.

It's "building your own" in the sense that I designed the workflow, templates, and processes. But I didn't code the infrastructure—I chose a platform that supported the workflow I wanted.

What We Actually Built

Our "own system" on Segment8 foundation:

Competitive Intelligence:

• Competitor database (our structure, platform infrastructure)
• Battle card templates (our design, auto-generated from platform)
• Win/loss tracking (our categories, Salesforce integration built-in)

Messaging Integration:

• Competitive positioning feeds directly into messaging frameworks
• Update positioning once, messaging updates automatically
• No manual synchronization

Enablement Integration:

• Battle cards auto-generate from messaging + competitive positioning
• One-click export to PDF, PowerPoint, Salesforce
• Sales gets notifications when competitive intelligence updates

Launch Integration:

• Competitive positioning auto-populates in launch plans
• Launch-specific battle cards auto-generate
• No manual "create competitive section for this launch"

The "building" work:

• Designed our competitor categorization (2 hours)
• Created our battle card template structure (3 hours)
• Built our messaging framework hierarchy (4 hours)
• Configured our win/loss categories (1 hour)

Total "building" time: 10 hours

What I didn't build:

• Database infrastructure (platform provides)
• Auto-generation logic (platform provides)
• Salesforce integration (platform provides)
• Export functionality (platform provides)

I built the system architecture and processes. The platform provided the infrastructure.

That's what "building your own" should mean.

Six Months Later: The Results

Metrics after "building our own" on consolidated platform:

• Competitive intelligence time: 12 hours/week (with Klue) → 3 hours/week
• Time per competitive update: 3 hours → 20 minutes (87% reduction)
• Time to create new battle card: 4 hours → 1.5 hours (62% reduction)
• Sales battle card usage: 6% (with Klue) → 67% (with integrated system)
• Tool cost: $18,000 (Klue) → $2,400 (consolidated platform)
• Total cost: $66,000 (Klue + time) → $14,400 (platform + time)

Annual savings: $51,600

But the bigger benefit wasn't cost. It was workflow.

With Klue: Competitive intelligence was standalone work disconnected from messaging and enablement With "built our own": Competitive intelligence integrated with everything else PMM does

Updates propagate automatically. One source of truth. No manual synchronization.

Do You Need to "Build Your Own"?

After this experience, when PMMs say "I'm cancelling Klue to build our own," I ask:

"What do you mean by 'build your own'?"

If you mean: Code custom software from scratch My response: Don't. The infrastructure work isn't valuable.

If you mean: Recreate Klue using free tools (Notion + Slides + Sheets) My response: Don't. You'll have the same workflow problems with different tools.

If you mean: Choose a different architecture that integrates CI with messaging and enablement My response: Yes. That's the right move.

"Building your own" should mean choosing the right foundation, not coding from scratch.

The Better Question

Instead of "Should we build or buy?" ask:

"Should we have standalone competitive intelligence or integrated competitive intelligence?"

Standalone: Competitive intelligence in one tool (Klue, or Notion, or Sheets), manually distributed to messaging, enablement, launches

Integrated: Competitive intelligence as one component of unified PMM workflow where updates propagate automatically

Most PMMs who cancel Klue and "build their own" are actually choosing integrated over standalone.

They're not building infrastructure. They're choosing better workflow architecture.

That's the right decision.

But you don't need to code it yourself. Choose a consolidated platform that provides the integrated architecture you need.

Configure it for your workflow. That's "building your own."

I "built our own competitive intelligence system" by choosing Segment8 as the foundation and configuring it for our needs.

10 hours of configuration work. 200+ hours of infrastructure work avoided.

Same result: integrated competitive intelligence system that works how we think.

Different path: configuration instead of coding.

When PMMs say "I'm building our own," they usually mean "I'm choosing better integration."

Don't code infrastructure from scratch. Choose the right foundation and configure it.

That's how you "build your own" system without actually building software.

And it works better than both Klue and free tools cobbled together.