Use this guide to examine one real decision, then test the change with the people affected.
01Start with the decision, not the adjective
A business describes itself as experienced, reliable and committed to excellence. Its competitors say much the same. The owner reaches for stronger language: exceptional quality, unparalleled service, a passion for customers. The words become louder, but the decision remains difficult.
The useful question is more specific: when a particular customer encounters a particular problem, what could they do instead of hiring us? They might hire a familiar provider, ask an employee to handle it, buy software, reduce the scope or tolerate the problem. Each alternative has something going for it. Doing nothing, for example, requires no implementation effort.
Positioning should explain why your approach makes sense in that decision. It cannot do that well if it treats every customer and every alternative as interchangeable.
02An illustrative example: the maintenance backlog
Consider an illustrative commercial maintenance business, not a reported client. It currently promises “complete maintenance solutions.” A facilities manager has a backlog of small repairs across several occupied locations. Hiring individual tradespeople could offer specialist depth. Using the existing handyman could preserve familiarity. Asking site staff to manage repairs could avoid a new vendor relationship. Waiting could keep this month’s schedule intact.
Suppose the maintenance business can genuinely coordinate access, group suitable small jobs and provide a clear completion record. Its relevant contribution might be: “Coordinated small repairs across occupied locations, with one scheduling contact and a record of what was completed.” That description is less grand than “complete solutions,” but helps a specific buyer understand the offer.
It also creates obligations. Someone must coordinate access. The completion record must exist. Jobs requiring specialist licensing or expertise need an appropriate route. A positioning statement becomes useful when the operating model can support it.
The real alternatives
| Area | Question |
|---|---|
| Situation | Several occupied sites; many small repairs; limited coordination time. |
| Alternatives | Individual specialists, familiar handyman, site staff or waiting. |
| Relevant difference | Coordinated access and suitable repairs, with a clear completion record. |
| Boundary | Complex specialist work follows an appropriate specialist route. |
03Choose a difference that changes the choice
List the alternative’s genuine advantages before writing your own. An established competitor may have stronger specialist credentials. An internal employee may understand the site better. A software product may make sense when the customer already has a capable team. Respecting these advantages helps you find a meaningful difference rather than an exaggerated comparison.
In the maintenance example, the difference is coordination under a particular set of conditions. It is not “better at everything.” That focus also identifies a poor fit: a customer with one complex specialist repair may be better served by the specialist directly.
The trade-off is real. A narrower promise may leave some enquiries outside the offer. But widening the language without widening delivery capability simply moves the disappointment further into the relationship. Different segments may need different offers; they do not automatically need separate brands.
04Turn the promise into something a customer can inspect
Before polishing a slogan, assemble the evidence a careful buyer would need. For this illustrative service, that could include a sample scheduling process, an accurately labelled example completion record and a clear explanation of exclusions. An example can show the intended method; it cannot establish that the business has delivered results it has not yet achieved.
Then test whether the positioning helps a suitable person explain the offer back to you. Ask which situation would make it useful, what they would compare it with and what remains unconvincing. Avoid asking only whether they like the wording.
This exercise does not prove demand, pricing power or market size. It produces a more precise hypothesis about who might choose you and why. Real enquiries, decisions and delivery experience must refine that hypothesis.
Apply this to one situation
Use actual observations where available. Mark assumptions and choose what to investigate next.
No submission or account is needed. This page does not send or store your answers. Download or print them before leaving; they are not saved by this tool. Your browser or extensions may retain form data.
Sources and limits
Source pages checked 11 October 2026 UTC. The worksheets are editorial aids; they have not been validated as predictive assessments.
- IDEO · Introduction to design thinking. Checked 11 October 2026. Practitioner method. Informs the human-needs, feasibility and viability lens. Heritage examples and exercises are original illustrations, not IDEO cases or an affiliation.
Our interest
Heritage Studio is taking first conversations about paid work in the areas this guide discusses, so we could be one of the providers you consider. You can use this guide and its worksheet without engaging Heritage.
Service work, The Read included, is a separate relationship: if we become interested in buying a business we are working with, we stop that work and tell the owner plainly before any purchase discussion begins.
This article is educational. It is not individual legal, tax or investment advice, an offer or a promise of results.