Brand Advisory Isn’t Marketing: Why Strategic Positioning Determines Business Model

Most companies treat brand strategy as a marketing deliverable. The CMO oversees it. The creative agency executes it. It sits in a deck somewhere between the social media calendar and the Q4 campaign plan.

This is a category error that costs companies millions in missed opportunity and strategic confusion.

Brand advisory – the strategic work of defining positioning, architecture, and market approach – isn’t a marketing function. It’s a business strategy function that happens to manifest through marketing. The distinction matters because positioning decisions determine business model viability, pricing power, partnership opportunities, and ultimately, whether a company can scale or merely survive.

When brand positioning is treated as marketing cosmetics rather than business strategy, companies make foundational decisions backwards. They design products, then try to position them. They set pricing, then attempt to justify it with a brand story. They build business models, then wonder why their positioning doesn’t support premium economics.

Strategic brand advisory reverses this sequence. Positioning comes first. Business model follows.

The Strategy/Execution Confusion

The confusion between brand strategy and brand marketing stems from proximity. Both involve the brand. Both care about perception. Both produce customer-facing assets. But they operate at fundamentally different altitudes.

Brand marketing executes within parameters that the brand strategy defines. Marketing decides which channels to use, what creative angles to pursue, and how to message campaigns. Strategy decides who the brand serves, what it stands for, how it creates defensible value, and what business model that positioning enables.

According to research on C-suite brand building, 45% of CEOs believe their business would not be viable in 10 years if they continued on their current path, making brand strategy integrated into long-term business planning essential, as detailed in the analysis of strategic brand building for executives.

Consider pricing. Marketing can optimize price communication – how you frame value, structure offers, and present tiering. But marketing can’t create pricing power. That emerges from strategic positioning.

Starbucks doesn’t charge premium prices because they have good marketing. They charge premium prices because their strategic positioning as a high-end coffee brand emphasizing quality, ethical sourcing, and the “Starbucks experience” creates a perception of exclusivity and premium quality that justifies the economics, according to research on Starbucks’ business strategy. The business model (premium pricing, experience-focused locations, loyalty programs) flows from that positioning decision, not the reverse.

When companies confuse strategy and marketing, they attempt to use marketing to solve strategy problems. They launch rebranding campaigns, hoping to command higher prices. They invest in advertising to fix positioning confusion. They hire creative agencies to paper over strategic clarity gaps.

It doesn’t work. You can’t market your way out of positioning problems. For unmtchd., this distinction – between strategic positioning that enables business models and marketing that executes within them – is the foundation of sustainable brand building.

How Positioning Determines Business Model

The relationship between positioning and business model runs deeper than most companies acknowledge. Positioning doesn’t just influence business model – it constrains and enables specific model types.

Pricing Model:

Your positioning determines whether you can charge premium, mid-market, or value prices. Not your product quality. Not your cost structure. Your strategic position.

A brand positioned around accessibility and broad inclusion struggles to command premium pricing regardless of product quality. A brand positioned around exclusivity and premium experiences struggles with volume-driven economics. The business model must align with the position or neither works.

Airlines demonstrate this principle clearly. Southwest positions around value, efficiency, and no-frills service. That positioning enables a business model based on high volume, operational efficiency, and price-sensitive customers. The same airline couldn’t suddenly charge first-class prices while maintaining the Southwest position. The model and the position are locked together.

Partnership Strategy:

Strategic positioning determines partnership viability. Brands positioned in premium segments can partner with other premium brands, creating mutually reinforcing perception. Brands positioned around value struggle to partner with luxury brands without damaging both positions.

PUMA’s partnerships with Porsche and BMW work because PUMA’s positioning (performance meets culture, sports lifestyle) aligns with those automotive brands’ premium performance positioning. The same partnerships would confuse positioning if PUMA were positioned as budget athletic wear. The business model of partnership-driven growth requires positioning that supports those partnerships.

Distribution Strategy:

Where you can sell determines business model economics. Strategic positioning dictates distribution viability.

Premium brands can’t distribute through discount channels without eroding positioning. Their business model requires selective distribution that reinforces exclusivity. Value brands can’t afford premium retail rent if their positioning doesn’t support pricing to cover it. The business model has to match the position.

Revenue Model:

According to McKinsey research on C-suite marketing alignment, only 50% of CMOs believe marketing executives are involved in the strategic planning process, despite marketing’s role being critical in understanding customer segments and buying journeys, as documented in the analysis of marketing leadership. This disconnect between marketing and strategy undermines brand building.

Positioning determines whether businesses can adopt subscription models, transactional models, marketplace models, or hybrid approaches. A brand positioned around premium, personalized service can justify subscription economics. A brand positioned around convenience and selection suits marketplace models. The positioning has to enable the revenue model or customers won’t accept it.

When companies choose business models without considering positioning, they create internal contradictions that confuse customers and limit growth.

The C-Suite Question

If brand advisory is a business strategy, not marketing, who owns it?

In most organizations, the CMO owns the brand. That placement reveals the strategy/marketing confusion. Brand strategy belongs closer to the CEO and CFO than to the CMO – because brand decisions determine business model viability, which determines financial outcomes, which determines company success.

This isn’t an argument against CMO involvement. Marketing expertise is crucial in brand strategy development. But ownership matters. When brand strategy reports through marketing, it gets treated as marketing. When it reports at the C-suite level, it gets treated as a business strategy.

The most sophisticated companies structure brand advisory as a strategic function that informs marketing, not as a marketing function that hopes to inform strategy. They involve CEOs in positioning decisions. They connect brand strategy to financial planning. They recognize that brand choices are business choices.

Consider what positioning determines:

• Addressable market size: Narrow positioning reduces the addressable market but increases the capture rate
• Customer acquisition cost: Clear positioning attracts the right customers and repels the wrong ones, improving CAC
• Lifetime value: Strong positioning creates loyalty and reduces churn, increasing LTV
• Margin structure: Positioning determines pricing power, which determines margin potential
• Competitive dynamics: Positioning defines who you compete with and on what basis
• Partnership opportunities: Positioning determines partnership fit and opportunity

Every one of these factors is a C-suite concern. Every one impacts financial outcomes. Yet many companies delegate positioning to marketing teams focused on execution rather than strategy.

The Advisory Process vs. The Marketing Process

Brand advisory operates through a different process than brand marketing. The inputs, outputs, timeline, and success metrics diverge completely.

Advisory Inputs:

• Business strategy and growth objectives
• Financial constraints and targets
• Competitive landscape analysis
• Market opportunity assessment
• Customer research (strategic, not tactical)
• Leadership vision and risk tolerance

Marketing Inputs:

• Campaign objectives
• Channel capabilities
• Creative resources
• Budget allocation
• Tactical customer insights
• Performance benchmarks

The advisory process might take months. It involves C-suite stakeholders. It produces strategic frameworks that guide years of decisions. The marketing process moves faster, involves execution teams, and produces campaigns and assets.

Both are necessary. Neither substitutes for the other.

Companies that confuse them end up with either brilliant marketing campaigns built on weak strategic foundations or strong strategic frameworks that never manifest because execution capabilities are absent.

Where Positioning Goes Wrong

Most positioning failures stem from treating positioning as marketing rather than strategy:

Starting with Creative, Not Strategy:

Companies hire agencies to create brand identities before defining strategic positioning. They develop logos, color palettes, and brand voices without first answering: Who are we? Who do we serve? What makes us defensible? How do we create value? The creative work looks impressive but lacks strategic grounding.

Prioritizing Differentiation Over Position:

Marketers think about differentiation – how to stand out from competitors. Strategists think about positioning – where to play and how to win. Differentiation is a marketing concern. Positioning is strategic. According to the 2025 brand strategy analysis, traditional positioning based on differentiation alone is no longer reliable because competitors can replicate distinctions faster than ever, requiring ecosystem-based positioning instead.

Following Trends Instead of Strategy:

Marketing responds to trends. Strategy shapes trends. When companies chase trending positioning (sustainable, inclusive, innovative), they’re following marketing thinking. Strategic positioning asks: What market position do we uniquely own? What position enables our business model? What position is defensible long-term?

Ignoring Business Model Implications:

The most common positioning failure: choosing positions that sound compelling but don’t support viable business models. “Affordable luxury” sounds good in a brand deck. It’s strategically incoherent. Luxury requires pricing that contradicts affordable. The positioning conflict guarantees business model problems.

Strategic Positioning in Practice

What does strategic brand advisory actually look like when done correctly?

It Starts With Business Questions, Not Brand Questions:

• What’s our path to profitability?
• What price points does our cost structure require?
• What partnerships would accelerate growth?
• Who can we serve better than anyone else?
• Where do we have defensible advantages?

The brand positioning that emerges answers these business questions. It doesn’t start with “What does our brand stand for?” It starts with “What business are we building, and what positioning enables that business?”

It Involves Financial Modeling:

Strategic positioning requires understanding the financial implications of position choices. Premium positioning requires different unit economics than value positioning. Niche positioning requires different customer acquisition strategies than broad positioning. The financial models have to work, or the positioning fails regardless of creative execution.

It Creates Constraints, Not Just Opportunities:

Strong positioning says no to opportunities as much as yes. It defines what the brand won’t do, who it won’t serve, and where it won’t compete. Marketing wants to expand possibilities. The strategy wants to focus resources. The constraint is the point.

It Lives at Board Level, Not Brand Guidelines:

Strategic positioning documents should sit alongside business plans, financial projections, and growth strategies. They’re board-level documents, not marketing department documents. They get reviewed annually, not redesigned every rebrand.

The Integration Challenge

The hardest part of treating brand advisory as strategy rather than marketing: integration. Strategy and execution must connect seamlessly.

Strategic positioning that never manifests in customer experience is wasted. Marketing execution that contradicts strategic positioning undermines both. The integration requires:

Clear Handoffs: Strategy defines the position, architecture, and principles. Marketing translates those into campaigns, assets, and channels. Each needs clarity about where their work begins and ends.

Shared Language: Strategy and marketing teams need a common vocabulary. What does “premium” mean in concrete terms? What does “accessible” actually require? A vague strategy creates confused marketing.

Regular Calibration: As marketing executes, they discover position clarity gaps. As strategy evolves, marketing needs an updated direction. A regular connection between strategy and execution keeps both aligned.

Success Metrics That Span Both: Brand health metrics bridge strategy and execution. Awareness, perception, preference, loyalty – these measure whether strategic positioning is manifesting through marketing execution.

The companies that succeed treat brand advisory and brand marketing as tightly integrated but distinct disciplines. One informs the other. Neither substitutes for the other.

The Business Case

Why does it matter whether companies treat brand advisory as strategy or marketing?

Because the economics have changed completely.

Strategic brand advisory might cost more upfront than marketing-driven brand work. A strategic positioning process involving market analysis, financial modeling, competitive assessment, and C-suite alignment requires significant investment.

But that investment determines whether the business model works. Whether pricing holds. Whether partnerships materialize. Whether positioning creates a defensible competitive advantage.

Companies that treat branding as marketing spend less on strategy and more on trying to fix the problems that weak strategy creates: positioning confusion, pricing pressure, partnership misalignment, customer acquisition inefficiency, and market position erosion.

Strategic brand advisory isn’t marketing with a bigger budget. It’s a different category of work with different objectives, processes, stakeholders, and outcomes. It happens to manifest through marketing, but it lives in the same strategic space as business model design, competitive strategy, and growth planning.

The companies that understand this distinction build brands that enable business models. The companies that miss it build brands that constantly fight against their business model constraints.

Moving Forward

Most companies won’t restructure their organizations to reflect the brand strategy/marketing distinction. Org charts are sticky. But they can change how they think about and approach brand decisions.

Before making positioning decisions, ask business strategy questions:

• What business model does this positioning enable or prevent?
• What pricing can we command with this position?
• What partnerships does this position make possible?
• What competitive dynamics does this create?
• How does this impact our financial model?

If the answers reveal business model conflicts, you have a strategy problem, not a marketing problem. Marketing can’t fix it.

Brand advisory isn’t marketing dressed up in strategy language. It’s a business strategy expressed through brand decisions. The distinction determines whether positioning creates business value or just creates prettier presentations.

Treat brand decisions as business decisions. Involve the right stakeholders. Ask the hard questions about business model implications. Recognize that positioning choices lock in certain business model options and lock out others.

The brands that last – the ones that scale, that command premium pricing, that become category leaders – don’t get there through better marketing. They get there through strategic positioning that enables superior business models. The marketing matters. But strategy comes first.