The Language Problem Killing Your Portfolio's GTM Efficiency

Here's a pattern I see across growth-stage companies: as they scale from $10M to $50M, their language gets worse, not better.

Not grammatically worse. Strategically worse.

Marketing polishes the messaging. Sales gets "best practices" training. The website gets redesigned with cleaner copy. Everything looks more professional.

And win rates drop.

Because while the company was getting polished, the language was drifting toward what every other vendor says. What I call the commodity trap. And buyers can't tell them apart anymore.

This isn't a marketing problem. It's a GTM efficiency problem that costs millions.

The Drift Nobody Notices

When companies are small, their language is specific. They talk about precise problems for precise buyers using language that sounds different from everyone else. Not because they're trying to be different. Because they haven't been polished yet.

But as they scale, something happens:

• Marketing smooths out the "rough" language to sound more professional

• Sales adopts industry "best practices" that everyone teaches

• Customer success uses standard terminology for consistency

• Product messaging gets "improved" to match category leaders

Nobody's doing anything wrong. Everyone's following best practices. But the cumulative effect is devastating: the company now sounds exactly like its competitors.

"Industry-leading platform." "Seamless integration." "Proven track record." "Best-in-class solution." "Trusted by Fortune 500 companies."

Pull up your website. Pull up your top competitor's website. Read them both. Can a buyer tell you apart based on language alone?

If the answer is no, you have a GTM efficiency problem disguised as normal scaling.

Why This Kills Revenue

Buyers aren't evaluating you in isolation. They're reading your competitor's website while reading yours. They're comparing case studies. They're absorbing messaging in the same browser session.

When your language overlaps 80-90% with competitors, something happens in the buyer's brain. What I call the Difference Lock engages. They can't tell you apart, so they default to price or status quo.

At ACES Growth, we run what we call Noise Reports. We analyze a company's language against their competitive set. Not features. Language. The actual words and phrases used in public-facing content.

Phrases that companies think are differentiating often show up as 80% or 90% common. "Transform your business." "Drive efficiency." "Accelerate growth." "Streamline operations."

Every competitor is saying it. Which means saying it communicates nothing.

But here's the GTM efficiency angle: your entire revenue organization is built on language that doesn't differentiate. Sales decks. Discovery questions. Demo narratives. Case studies. All using the same vendor-centric phrases every competitor uses.

You're spending millions on GTM with language that makes you invisible.

The Three Language Problems

Problem One: Vendor Verbs

Most B2B companies use what I call vendor verbs. "We provide." "We deliver." "You get." "We help."

These verbs make the vendor the hero of the story. But buyers don't want a vendor hero. They want to be the hero.

What I call Victory Verbs work differently: "Eliminate delayed releases." "Compress decision cycles." "Remove approval bottlenecks." "Expose hidden dependencies."

These are buyer-centric. Outcome-focused. And critically, they're tied to how you uniquely do what you do. Not generic benefits any vendor could claim.

Some companies replace vendor verbs with Victory Verbs across their entire GTM motion. Not just marketing. Sales conversations. Discovery questions. Demo narratives. Proof construction.

This requires linguistic discipline.

Problem Two: Generic Frames

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

But most don't realize they're doing it. They're just "explaining their value proposition." Meanwhile, competitors are choosing frames that advantage their approach.

When you use generic positioning language, you're accepting whatever frame your competitor set first. And if their frame advantages them, you've lost before the meeting starts.

GTM efficiency means analyzing what frames competitors are setting through their public content, then choosing frames that advantage your approach before the buyer encounter happens.

This requires competitive intelligence.

Problem Three: Proof That Triggers the Unicorn Bias

Most companies organize proof by industry or company size. Then they wonder why "relevant" case studies don't close deals.

The problem is what I call the Unicorn Bias from The Revenue Locks. When proof feels like someone else's victory, buyers think "that's not us, our situation is different." The Impact Lock stays closed even though you're showing proof.

Here's the issue: your entire proof strategy might be triggering the Unicorn Bias across your GTM motion. Same case studies shared in different contexts. Same ROI calculators used for different buyer situations. Same generic outcomes regardless of specific circumstances.

That's not proof strategy. That's proof distribution. And it's costing you deals.

GTM efficiency requires proof frameworks that teach sellers to construct relevant proof in the moment. Not pulling a case study from a library. Connecting proof to this buyer's specific situation using their language about their constraints.

This requires enablement.

The Function That Should Exist

Who in your organization owns GTM language strategy?

Marketing owns brand messaging. But they're not analyzing competitive language overlap or mapping frames competitors set in the field.

Sales owns conversations. But they're using whatever language they learned in training, not chosen alternatives to competitor phrases.

Product owns positioning. But they're focused on features and benefits, not linguistic differentiation that opens psychological locks.

Enablement owns training. But they're distributing content, not building language frameworks that differentiate.

The result? Your GTM motion is built on language that doesn't differentiate. And nobody owns fixing it.

Some companies have built the cross-functional capability to:

• Analyze competitive language quarterly and identify overlap

• Map frames competitors set and choose counter-positioning

• Replace vendor verbs with Victory Verbs across the GTM motion

• Build proof frameworks that avoid the Unicorn Bias

• Implement linguistic alternatives through enablement

This isn't a one-time project. It's ongoing competitive intelligence operationalized into revenue generation.

What GTM Efficiency Actually Looks Like

GTM efficiency means every dollar spent on revenue generation works harder because the language differentiates instead of blending in.

Your website doesn't sound like everyone else's. Your sales conversations use different frames. Your proof connects to specific buyer situations instead of triggering the Unicorn Bias. Your demo narratives make the buyer the hero, not the vendor.

But getting there requires work:

Competitive Language Audit: What phrases do competitors use repeatedly? Which ones do we share? What's our overlap percentage? What linguistic alternatives exist that would actually differentiate?

Frame Mapping: What frames are competitors setting through public content? Which frames advantage our approach? How do we position those frames before buyers encounter competitor messaging?

Victory Verb Implementation: Where are we using vendor verbs? What buyer-centric outcomes could replace them? How do we connect those outcomes to our unique approach? How do we train the entire revenue organization to use them consistently?

Proof Framework Development: What makes proof feel relevant versus generic? How do we teach sellers to construct proof in the moment? What case study organization actually serves buyer psychology instead of our internal convenience?

Many companies scale GTM spending without fixing the underlying language problem. More sellers saying the same undifferentiated things. More marketing spend on messages that blend in. More enablement training on scripts that trigger psychological locks.

That's not GTM efficiency. That's GTM waste.

The Cost at Scale

When you're at $10M, you might have 10 sellers saying undifferentiated things. Inefficient, but manageable.

When you scale to $50M, you have 50 sellers saying undifferentiated things. The inefficiency scales linearly with headcount. But the opportunity cost scales exponentially because each lost deal is larger.

The Difference Lock engages across your entire pipeline. Buyers can't tell you apart from competitors. Win rates stay stuck. The only way to hit targets is adding more headcount using the same broken language.

You're scaling the problem, not the solution.

Some companies fix the language problem before scaling GTM. They build the capability to differentiate linguistically. Then when they add headcount, they're scaling efficiency, not waste.

The Question

If someone pulled a random sales conversation from your pipeline right now and showed it to a buyer alongside a competitor's conversation, could that buyer tell you apart based on language alone?

Not based on your product. Based on the words used. The frames set. The proof constructed. The outcomes described.

If the answer is no, you have a language problem. And it's getting worse as you scale, not better.

Some companies have built the capability to differentiate through language across their entire GTM motion. Competitive intelligence operationalized into linguistic differentiation that opens the Difference Lock instead of triggering it.

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 language overlap, choose strategic counter-positioning, and implement Victory Verbs across their GTM motion to unlock the Difference Lock. Learn more at acesgrowth.com or connect on LinkedIn.