The Competitive Intelligence Function That Doesn't Exist (But Should)

Ask any revenue leader about their competitive strategy, and you'll get similar answers. Battle cards. Win-loss analysis. Feature comparison matrices. Pricing intelligence.

But here's what's missing: buyers aren't reading your battle cards. They're reading your competitors' websites. Right now. In the same browser window as yours.

If you haven't analyzed what language, frames, and proof your competitors are using in those public spaces, you show up to discovery calls wondering why buyers seem skeptical about things you never said. Or why they're asking loaded questions that advantage your competitor's approach.

It's because the frame was already set. By their public messaging. Before you got in the room.

What Competitive Intelligence Actually Means

Most competitive analysis focuses on the wrong things. Features. Pricing. Integration lists. Technical specifications.

But buyers don't choose based on feature checklists. They choose based on whose language resonates. Whose frame makes sense. Whose proof feels relevant.

Here's what often happens: you sound exactly like your competitors.

At ACES Growth, we run what we call Noise Reports. We analyze your language against your competitors' public-facing content. Their websites. Their case studies. Their sales materials. The same stuff your buyers are reading during evaluation.

Language that companies think is differentiating often shows up as 80% or 90% common across their competitive set.

"Industry-leading platform." "Proven track record." "Seamless integration." "Best-in-class solution."

Your competitors are saying the exact same things. When buyers can't tell you apart through language, they default to price or status quo. What I call the Difference Lock stays closed.

The Three Layers Nobody Analyzes

Real competitive intelligence has three layers. Most companies stop at layer one.

Layer One: The Language Gap

Which phrases do your competitors use repeatedly? Which ones do you share with them? When 80-90% of your language overlaps, you don't have differentiation. You have noise.

This isn't about counting words. It's about identifying the vendor-centric language that triggers the buyer's pattern-matching: "Oh, here's another typical seller using the same pitch everyone uses."

What I call Victory Verbs work differently. They're outcome-focused, buyer-centric, and tied to your unique approach. "Eliminate delayed releases" instead of "improve deployment speed." "Compress decision cycles" instead of "streamline processes."

Some companies map which language competitors use and choose different words that communicate different outcomes.

Layer Two: The Positioning Frame

Every competitor is setting a frame for the decision. "Proven vs. risky." "Enterprise-grade vs. startup." "Complete solution vs. point tool." "Industry specialist vs. generalist."

Each frame activates different psychological locks in the buyer's brain. If your competitor frames the decision as "proven vs. risky" through their public content, and you walk into discovery talking about innovation, you've already lost. You're playing their frame.

Some companies map the frames their competitors are setting in public spaces. Then they choose frames that advantage their approach before the buyer encounter happens.

This requires analysis of competitor messaging, not anecdotes from one lost deal.

Layer Three: The Proof Strategy

What case studies are your competitors showcasing? What industries? What outcomes? What company sizes? What before-and-after specifics?

This matters because of what I call the Unicorn Bias from The Revenue Locks. When buyers see proof that doesn't feel like them, the Impact Lock engages. They think "that's not us, our situation is different."

Here's the question: are your competitors triggering or avoiding the Unicorn Bias? If they're showing proof from similar companies in similar situations, and you're showing generic ROI calculators, they're winning the proof battle before you know you're in it.

Competitive intelligence means knowing what proof they're using, what it's designed to accomplish, and how to position your proof to feel more relevant.

Who Owns This Analysis?

This function often doesn't have a home.

Product marketing owns positioning. But they're not analyzing competitor language in the field or mapping frames set in public content.

Sales operations owns battle cards. But they're updating feature comparisons, not deconstructing the linguistic and psychological strategies competitors deploy.

Sales enablement owns training. But they're teaching discovery questions and objection handling, not how to counter frames already set before the meeting.

The result? Your competitors are shaping buyer thinking through their public content, and nobody on your team is tracking it.

Some companies have built this as a continuous function. Someone analyzes competitor language quarterly. Someone maps frames and updates counter-positioning. Someone tracks which proof strategies are working and why.

This isn't a one-time project. It's ongoing intelligence and response.

What This Looks Like

The better implementations I've seen have three characteristics:

Regular Cadence: Not when you lose a deal. Quarterly analysis of all competitor public content. Ongoing tracking of language patterns, frame evolution, and proof strategies.

Cross-Functional Input: Product marketing provides positioning context. Sales provides field intelligence. Revenue operations provides win-loss data. Someone synthesizes it into actionable insights.

Operationalized Output: Not a report that sits in a folder. Updated battle cards with linguistic alternatives. Positioning guidance that counters frames. Proof strategies that avoid the Unicorn Bias. Training that teaches sellers how to recognize and respond to competitor frames in real conversations.

Some companies win deals where they "shouldn't" win. Not because they have better features. Because they understood the competitive battlefield better and positioned accordingly.

The Cost of Not Having This

Without this competitive intelligence, your sellers walk into discovery not knowing what frame the buyer already absorbed from competitor websites. They use the same generic language competitors use, wondering why buyers can't tell them apart. They share proof that triggers the Unicorn Bias while competitors share proof that feels relevant.

The Difference Lock stays engaged. Buyers default to price or status quo. Win rates stay stuck.

The Question

If someone asked your revenue leader right now: "What language are your top three competitors using that you're not? What frames are they setting that advantage their approach? What proof strategies are they deploying that yours should counter?" could they answer with specificity?

Some companies have built this capability. They know what buyers are reading before the first call. They've mapped the frames being set and chosen their counter-positioning. They've identified the language overlap and chosen different words.

The buyers can see your differentiation. They just can't hear it if you sound the same.

Joe Collins is the founder of ACES Growth and author of The Revenue Locks. His firm helps growth-stage B2B companies identify competitive language patterns and position strategically to unlock the Difference Lock. Learn more at acesgrowth.com or connect on LinkedIn.