Positioning Statement Examples: Three Real Homepages, Rebuilt and Stress-Tested

I agree with her about filling in blanks. Where I part ways is on throwing the template out. As a way to write positioning, it is the exercise she warns against. As a check after the thinking is done, to make sure nothing is missing, I think it earns its place. Below are three real homepages, quoted exactly as they stood as of 15 October 2026, each rebuilt into the statement it implies and run through the same test. All three leave out the same line, and I’ll come back to it at the end.

The test, stated once

Two parts, in this order.

First, delete the brand name. Read the line again and ask whether your closest competitor could publish it unchanged. If they could, it isn’t positioning yet. It’s a description of the category.

Second, check what’s left against the five components Dunford lays out in her quickstart guide to positioning: competitive alternatives, differentiated capabilities, value for customers, target customer segmentation and market category. Her objection to the blank-filling version is that it “assumes that there is only one answer for each of the blanks”. She is right that it does, which is why I only trust the template once the five components have been argued out properly.

In an earlier essay she describes positioning as “the act of giving those customers a map of the current landscape”. A homepage headline is the first thing on that map a buyer reads. If it could belong to anyone, the buyer has nowhere to put you.

Zerodha: the differentiator sits below the headline

What the homepage says (zerodha.com, fetched 15 October 2026). The headline is “Invest in everything”, and the line under it reads: “Online platform to invest in stocks, IPOs, derivatives, mutual funds, ETFs, bonds, and more.” Further down, the company says “1.8+ crore customers trust Zerodha with ~ ₹9 lakh crores of equity investments, making us India’s largest broker”. Under pricing: “We pioneered the concept of discount broking and price transparency in India. Flat fees and no hidden charges.” It also promises “No gimmicks, spam, “gamification”, or annoying push notifications.”

The statement it implies. For Indian investors who want to know exactly what each trade will cost them, Zerodha is the online broker that pioneered discount broking and price transparency in India, with flat fees, no hidden charges and no gamification.

Where it passes and where it fails. Delete the name from “Invest in everything” and almost any broker or investing app could publish it. It fails the first test. The second test goes much better. The category is clear, the target is implied, and the value and the differentiators are all on the page, just not at the top. The weakest component is the competitive alternative. “Price transparency” and “no gamification” only mean something against brokers and apps that don’t offer them, and the page leaves the reader to fill that in.

I’m not saying the headline is hurting Zerodha. My point is narrower. A company that describes itself as India’s largest broker, with 1.8+ crore customers by its own count, can run a category headline, because readers already know who it is. A smaller company that copies “Invest in everything” gets a line anyone could sign and none of the recognition that makes it work.

Freshworks: names the customer, skips the alternative

What the homepage says (freshworks.com, fetched 15 October 2026). The headline is “Turn operational complexity into coordinated action”. Under it: “Built for agile enterprises, Freshworks runs employee service and customer support on AI-powered workflows…” Then “Trusted by 74,000+ businesses worldwide”, followed by a section that opens “Unified platform for IT & employee service”.

The statement it implies. For agile enterprises running employee service and customer support, Freshworks is the service platform that runs both on AI-powered workflows.

Where it passes and where it fails. The headline fails the delete-the-name test outright. Plenty of workflow, IT service or operations software could sign “Turn operational complexity into coordinated action”. The sub-headline is stronger than anything else at the top of these three pages on one component: it names a target customer, “agile enterprises”, and the category is clear enough.

What’s missing is the alternative. Nothing in the hero says what these enterprises are using today instead. “Unified platform” hints at it, and my reading is that the alternative is separate tools for each team. If that’s right, it belongs at the top, because “one platform instead of separate tools for IT, HR and support” at least tells the reader what they’re leaving behind.

Here is the same statement with the alternative written in, as a test of my reading rather than a suggestion to the company: for agile enterprises running IT, HR and customer support on separate tools, Freshworks is the service platform that puts them on one set of AI-powered workflows. Same claims, one extra clause, and now there’s something a buyer can compare.

Notion: claims a new category instead of beating an old one

What the homepage says (notion.com, fetched 15 October 2026). The headline is “Where teams and agents Think together.” Under it: “Capture context, find answers, and automate tasks with AI built for your team.” The page title calls it “The AI workspace that works for you.” Further down are “100M users in over 50 countries” and “62% of Fortune 100 use Notion”.

The statement it implies. For teams that want AI working inside the place their documents and knowledge already live, Notion is the AI workspace where people and agents work together.

Where it passes and where it fails. It does better on the delete-the-name test than the other two, because “teams and agents” is a specific claim. It still isn’t safe. Any workspace or AI tool that adds agents could sign it next quarter. The bigger thing to notice is the choice it makes. Instead of beating a named alternative, it claims a new category, the AI workspace. That’s a legitimate move and an expensive one, because the reader has to understand the new category before they can want it.

The proof points are big numbers. By Notion’s own figures, a lot of people use it. What the numbers don’t tell a buyer is why Notion, rather than whatever they use today. A large count is evidence of volume, not a reason to choose. A number can look excellent and still measure the wrong thing, and the 4.9 star rating that means nothing makes exactly that case about customer ratings.

The template, rebuilt

Use this after you’ve done the thinking, never before. Treat it as a checklist, not a writing prompt.

The second line is the one all three homepages leave out. It’s also where Dunford says the work has to begin. Her question is “What would a customer do if your offering didn’t exist?”, and she notes that the answer is sometimes “do nothing”, which can mean using a spreadsheet, a manual process, or hiring an intern to do the work. If your team can’t fill in that line, you haven’t agreed on what you’re replacing, and no headline will cover for that.

Then run the test again. Delete the brand. Could your closest rival sign every line? If yes, rewrite lines two and four until the answer is no.

If you’re still deciding who the customer in line one is, start with how to identify your target market when you’re pre-product-market-fit. If the category in line three is the open question, the founder’s go-to-market playbook for AI-era products is the better next read.

Open your own homepage now and delete your name from the headline. If a competitor could sign what’s left, start your rewrite at line two of the template, not at the headline. Then share your headline with the brand name deleted, plus your line two, below this post, and see whether other readers can tell it’s yours.