category-creation-strategy

name	category-creation-strategy
description	Guides marketers through decisions about category creation, category naming, problem ownership, and market positioning strategy; trigger when a user is deciding whether to create a new category, name a category, or differentiate in a crowded market
version	2026-04-20
episode_count	17

Category Creation Strategy

Overview

This skill covers how B2B marketers should approach category creation, category naming, problem ownership, and market positioning strategy—including when to pursue category creation versus competing in existing categories, how to name a category or problem, and how to build consensus around a new market concept. All practices are sourced exclusively from guests on the Exit Five podcast; no outside frameworks or general marketing knowledge have been added. Where guests disagree, those disagreements are surfaced explicitly rather than resolved.

---

Deciding Whether to Pursue Category Creation

Before committing to category creation, make the decision explicitly and with clear eyes about what it requires.

Test whether you actually need a new category. Ask: is this a genuinely new thing the world has never bought before, or are you searching for separation from existing competitors? If it's the latter, you're doing positioning, not category creation. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Use a risk-reward framework to make the decision. Category creation enables billion-dollar potential and category leadership economics (larger deal sizes, higher win rates, shorter sales cycles), but requires significant marketing investment before product marketing pays off. Competing in an existing category is lower risk, with existing budgets and buyer teams, but caps potential at multi-hundred-million and requires constant differentiation fighting. Make this decision explicitly with leadership, acknowledging its all-or-nothing nature. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Consider the data on what actually works. Analysis of tech companies that went public shows 92% competed in existing market categories, not new ones they created. If you have compelling, differentiated value that solves a real customer problem better than alternatives, you can win in a crowded market without inventing a new category. (Source: April Dunford, Episode #309) (Note: this is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

Recognize that category creation is not the only ownable idea strategy. Coined problems, frameworks, identity labels, and X vs. Y distinctions can be more achievable and equally effective alternatives. Evaluate whether your market actually needs a new category before defaulting to it. (Source: Katelyn Bourgoin, Episode #344) (Note: this is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

Recognize that most successful positioning is actually sub-category creation. True category creation is rare. Most successful products position as "like X, but different in Y way"—the air fryer is a fryer without oil; Drift was live chat but for sales. Lean on existing mental models because buyers understand new things by comparing them to what already exists. (Source: Louis Grenier, Episode #322) (Note: this is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

If you cannot achieve #1 in your current category, treat category creation as a strategic imperative. Category leaders capture disproportionate economics. If you're locked out of the top position in an existing category, creating a new one where you can lead may be the only path to outsized outcomes. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223) (Note: this is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

Do not pursue category creation as a tactic to avoid a crowded market. Category creation is a core identity decision for the company, not a marketing maneuver. If you're creating a category out of a desire to separate from competitors rather than because your product is fundamentally new, you're doing positioning—call it that. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

---

Committing to Category Creation: What It Actually Requires

If you decide category creation is the right path, treat it as a multi-year company commitment—not a campaign.

Require long-term founder and leadership buy-in before starting. Category creation is a multi-year effort. Founders and leadership must commit to the category as the core identity of the company and not pivot based on short-term results. Early-stage startups that try to play both category creation and quick customer acquisition often fail at both. Measure success through search volume, media mentions, and inbound interest over time—not early pipeline. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Shift from product marketing to solution marketing. When executing category creation, stop leading with product features and capabilities. Instead, talk directly about buyer pains and how you solve them realistically. Hand buyers a roadmap showing how you solve problems they've been unable to solve for years. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Build a research-backed category point of view before leading with product. Start with widely recognized but undiscussed "elephant in the room" problems. Use research and data to quantify the problem and its consequences. Structure it as: identify the problem → quantify the risk with data → present the solution path. This hooks buyers on the category before they encounter your product. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Apply the Inflection-Insight-Idea framework to structure your point of view. Identify the macro inflection point affecting your industry (e.g., generative AI), extract the insight you have about that inflection, and define the idea you want to take to market. This creates a coherent, defensible narrative that resonates with executives. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episode #206)

Provoke binary buyer decisions rather than following the natural purchase flow. Instead of competing as flavor A, B, or C of the same thing, force buyers to choose between "go left or right at a fork in the road." Present the modern approach versus staying with the original plan. This is riskier (all-or-nothing) but shifts the conversation from comparison to category choice. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Use category vision to guide all marketing execution. Define a clear category vision (what category you're in, what problem you solve, how you solve it uniquely) and ensure all campaigns, messaging, and initiatives ladder up to that vision. This prevents marketing from becoming reactive and scattered. Every campaign should reinforce the category narrative, not contradict it. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episodes #198 and #123)

Calendar 1–2 major marketing moments per year ("lightning strikes") to align product and marketing. Set these dates in advance to create forcing functions for the product team and ensure all marketing efforts ladder up to your category vision. This prevents budget from being spread across incremental, disconnected campaigns. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episode #198)

---

Category Naming Strategy

(Note: how to name a category is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

When modifying an existing category, add a differentiating word that reflects a genuine market shift. Rather than inventing an entirely new name, append or prepend a modifier to an existing, well-understood category. For example, "cloud BI" instead of "business intelligence" immediately communicates a genuine architectural difference. The modifier should reflect the core value prop and the shift in the market you're riding. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episodes #198 and #123)

When inventing a new category name, signal advancement while connecting to the legacy category. Use terminology that positions the new category as the next generation of an existing one. The abbreviation should be memorable and catchy. For example, "Extended Access Management" (XAM) signals advancement over "Identity and Access Management" (IAM) through the word "Extended" while remaining recognizable. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Use the word "enterprise" intentionally when targeting organization-wide scope. Use "enterprise" deliberately to signal the size of organization you're targeting and the scope of impact (organization-wide benefit, not just a single department). Avoid "corporate," which carries negative connotations. "Enterprise" also helps separate from narrower positioning that implies only one department's value. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Give everything a name—products, events, concepts, initiatives. Names make things stick differently than generic descriptions. Once something has a name, it becomes real and people can refer to it consistently. The name doesn't have to be perfect; it just needs to be something you can own and repeat. (Source: Dave Gerhardt, Episode #314)

---

Owning a Problem or Point of View Instead of (or Alongside) a Category

(Note: whether to focus on problem ownership versus category ownership is contested — see Where Experts Disagree)

Name a specific problem your audience faces—the "conceptual scoop." Observe a trend or problem and give it a name that resonates with your ICP. Examples: "revenue leak," "go-to-market bloat," "the great ignore," "evidence gap." This is more defensible and memorable than category creation, and it gives your audience language to describe their own pain. (Source: Brendan Hufford, Episode #242)

Create and own unique language ("languaging") to define your category and problem. Invent or reframe language that becomes synonymous with your company and the problem you solve. When prospects search your coined term, they find you. When other companies start using the phrase, it reinforces your ownership. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episode #206)

Prioritize owning your point of view over creating a new category name. Even if a new category doesn't take off, a strong point of view with consistent language and messaging provides differentiation and drives results. Focus on defining the problem you solve, the future you're architecting, and the language you use to describe it—the category name is secondary. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episode #206)

In commoditized markets, win on philosophy and narrative, not feature comparison. Avoid playing the feature comparison game. Instead, create a bigger story or philosophy that resonates with buyers. HubSpot won with "inbound marketing" philosophy, not email features; Drift created "conversational marketing" around a commodity feature (chat). Differentiate by persona, point of view, service quality, or a new narrative. (Source: Dave Gerhardt, Episode #214)

---

Building Category Consensus and Market Education

Execute a multi-channel consensus-building strategy to establish a new category. Three channels matter most: (1) Analyst relations—bring Gartner, Forrester, and IDC along the journey to give the category credibility; (2) Buyer community engagement—participate in roundtables and forums as a peer, not a vendor, to provoke discussion of the problem; (3) Thought leadership—lead with category point of view, not product messaging. The goal is "herd mentality": get the first 1,000 customers and the next 10,000 follow. Without this consensus, you face a 10-year street fight for every deal. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Embed a former buyer persona in marketing leadership to access target communities. Hire a former member of your target buyer persona (e.g., a former CISO) as a direct report to the CMO. Position them to participate authentically in target buyer communities as a peer, not as a vendor. Their role is to agitate for the problems the category solves and provoke conversation about solutions—without pitching the product. This builds credibility and insider access that pure marketing cannot achieve. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Use market leadership perception to shift buyer decisions and increase win rates. When you establish undeniable market leadership perception (through brand visibility, analyst positioning, etc.), you force competing buyers to acknowledge they're choosing #2 or #3. This creates friction in their decision-making and increases your win rate on deals you're already in. The business case for brand leadership is measurable through win-rate improvement, not just lead generation. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Prioritize making prospects problem-aware and solution-aware over traditional lead generation. When your market doesn't yet understand the category or the problem you solve, focus marketing efforts on education and awareness. Use talks, conferences, face-to-face meetings, influencer partnerships, and thought leadership to help prospects understand that multiple solutions exist. Once prospects understand the problem and solution landscape, they will naturally seek you out. (Source: Andrew Davies, Episode #195)

Distinguish between demand creation and demand capture, and allocate budget accordingly. When your product category is not yet recognized by analysts or buyers, allocate significant marketing capital to demand creation—educating the market about the problem and solution category. Separately, allocate budget to demand capture for buyers already showing intent signals. (Source: Mychelle Mollot, Episode #182)

Own the broader category narrative through thought leadership, content, and playbooks. Beyond product positioning, take ownership of the category itself through books, marketing summits, and frameworks that help the market understand the category. This elevates the company's position from vendor to category leader. (Source: Maura Rivera, Episode #301)

---

Research and Discovery Methods for Category Strategy

Conduct 50+ conversations using three simple questions to ground category strategy in market reality. When entering a new role or building category strategy, ask customers, employees, advisors, and investors: (1) "Explain what this company does like I'm five years old," (2) "Explain the problem we solve like I'm five years old," and (3) "What problems will we be solving in 6–12 months?" Collect all responses, identify themes and patterns, and synthesize into a clear problem statement, solution narrative, and category definition. This surfaces authentic market perception rather than internal assumptions. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episodes #198 and #123)

Consider whether to lead with category positioning or competitive alternative positioning. When building messaging for a new or emerging category, decide whether to lead with category language or with the specific thing you're replacing. Category positioning works when you're riding a wave up. But for many B2B SaaS companies, the real competition is a spreadsheet, manual process, or nothing—not another product in your category. In these cases, call out what buyers are actually doing now and position your solution as the replacement. (Source: Diane Wiredu, Episode #300)

Look for boring verticals where all competitors follow the same playbook. These are ripe for disruption. The opportunity isn't a one-off campaign; it's a complete brand strategy built around differentiation from day one. Every touchpoint—packaging, copy, channel choice, creative style—should reinforce the disruptive positioning. (Source: Mark Schaefer, Episode #261)

---

Building a Category Through Media and Events

Consider building a media company and audience first, then productizing the category. Rather than building a SaaS product and then trying to market it, build a media company and audience around an emerging trend or underserved topic. Once you've established yourself as the authoritative voice and built an audience, you can productize the category. This approach lets you own the audience and the narrative from day one. (Source: Jared Fuller, Episode #174)

Host proprietary events to establish market presence when the category is not yet defined or recognized. When your product category doesn't have established analyst recognition (e.g., no Gartner Magic Quadrant), create your own events to build visibility and establish thought leadership. This complements attending third-party events and helps define the category in the market. (Source: Mychelle Mollot, Episode #182)

---

Where Experts Disagree

1. Should B2B companies pursue category creation or compete in existing categories?

The core question: Is category creation a legitimate strategic path worth pursuing, or is it harder and riskier than it's worth for most companies?

Position A: Category creation is a legitimate and powerful strategic path (5 supporters)

• Melton Littlepage (Episode #223) framed category creation vs. existing category as an explicit risk-reward decision. Category creation enables billion-dollar potential and category leadership economics (larger deals, higher win rates, shorter cycles), while competing in existing categories caps potential at multi-hundred-million. If you can't be #1 in your current category, category creation becomes the strategic imperative.
• Ari Yablock (Episode #284) argued category creation is valid when your product is genuinely new—something the world has never bought before. It requires long-term founder commitment and cannot be abandoned based on short-term results. It's a core identity decision, not a marketing tactic.
• Jared Fuller (Episode #174) advocated building a media company and audience around an emerging trend first, then productizing the category—arguing this approach lets you own the category narrative and distribution from day one.
• Maura Rivera (Episode #301) is actively pursuing ownership of "agent marketing" as a category through books, summits, and frameworks—positioning the company as category leader rather than just a product vendor.

Position B: Category creation is harder and riskier than necessary for most companies (4 supporters)

• April Dunford (Episode #309) cited data that 92% of tech companies that went public competed in existing market categories, not new ones they created. Compelling, differentiated value within an existing category is sufficient to win in crowded markets.
• Katelyn Bourgoin (Episode #344) argued category creation is just one type of ownable idea strategy and not always the best one. Coined problems, frameworks, identity labels, and X vs. Y distinctions can be more achievable and equally effective. Category creation is harder and riskier; other ownable idea types may deliver the same result.
• Louis Grenier (Episode #322) argued true category creation is rare and most successful positioning is actually sub-category creation ("like X but different in Y way"). Buyers understand new things by comparing them to what already exists, so leaning on existing mental models is more effective.
• Brendan Hufford (Episode #242) advocated naming a specific problem ("conceptual scoop") rather than creating a new category name, arguing this is more defensible, memorable, and gives audiences language to describe their own pain without the risk of category creation.

Support summary: 5 vs. 4

Context dependency: Partially context-dependent. April Dunford and Louis Grenier are speaking to the general case (most companies), while Melton Littlepage and Ari Yablock are speaking to companies that are genuinely building something new or cannot achieve #1 in their current category. However, there is still genuine disagreement about the default recommendation—Dunford and Grenier say the default should be competing in existing categories, while Littlepage frames category creation as a strategic imperative when you can't lead your current category, which is a common situation. The disagreement doesn't fully dissolve with context.

Trend note: The two most recent guests (Katelyn Bourgoin, Episode #344, April 2026; Louis Grenier, Episode #322, January 2026) both argue against defaulting to category creation, as does April Dunford (Episode #309, December 2025). The pro-category-creation voices are clustered in earlier episodes (Episodes #174, #223, #284). This suggests a possible shift in the field toward skepticism about category creation as a default strategy.

What this means for you: This is one of the highest-stakes strategic decisions a B2B marketing leader can make—it shapes budget allocation, messaging, sales motion, and timeline to results. Before committing to category creation, pressure-test whether your product is genuinely new (Yablock's test), whether you can realistically achieve #1 in your current category (Littlepage's test), and whether a simpler approach—naming a problem, creating a framework, or sub-category positioning—would achieve the same strategic goal with less risk (Dunford's, Bourgoin's, and Grenier's challenge).

---

2. Should you invent a new category name or modify an existing one?

The core question: When naming a category, should you add a modifier to an existing category name or invent something new?

Position A: Modify an existing category name (3 supporters)

• Kyle Coleman (Episodes #198 and #123) recommended appending a modifier to an existing category (e.g., "cloud BI" instead of "business intelligence") to signal differentiation while leveraging existing market understanding. The modifier should reflect a genuine shift in how the problem is solved. He gave this advice consistently across two separate episodes.
• Louis Grenier (Episode #322) argued people's brains understand new things by comparing them to what already exists (the "horseless carriage" principle), so sub-category positioning that leans on existing mental models is more effective than inventing entirely new category names.

Position B: Invent a new category name that signals advancement (1 supporter)

• Melton Littlepage (Episode #223) recommended naming new categories to signal advancement over the legacy category (e.g., "Extended Access Management"/XAM over "Identity and Access Management"/IAM), with a memorable abbreviation. The name should signal it as the next generation while connecting to the legacy category—a more deliberate invention than simply adding a modifier.

Support summary: 3 vs. 1

Context dependency: Partially context-dependent. Melton Littlepage's advice applies specifically to true category creation scenarios (genuinely new products requiring analyst recognition), while Kyle Coleman's modifier approach is more broadly applicable. However, even in true category creation, the two approaches conflict on whether to invent a new name or modify an existing one.

What this means for you: If you're doing sub-category positioning or differentiation within an existing space, the modifier approach (Coleman, Grenier) has stronger support and is lower risk. If you're pursuing true category creation and need analyst recognition (e.g., a Gartner Magic Quadrant), Littlepage's approach of inventing a name that signals advancement may be more appropriate—but it carries higher education costs.

---

3. Should you focus on owning a category name or owning the language around a specific problem?

The core question: Is it more valuable to own a category (e.g., "inbound marketing") or to own the language around a specific problem (e.g., "go-to-market bloat")?

Position A: Own the problem language, not the category (4 supporters)

• Brendan Hufford (Episode #242) explicitly argued for naming a specific problem (e.g., "revenue leak," "go-to-market bloat," "the great ignore") rather than creating a new product category. Called this a "conceptual scoop" and argued it is more defensible and memorable than category creation.
• Kyle Coleman (Episode #206) argued the most important asset is owning a clear, differentiated point of view—not a category name. Even if a new category doesn't take off, strong point-of-view language provides differentiation and drives results. He also created the term "go-to-market bloat" as a practical example: when prospects search this term, they find Copy.ai.
• Katelyn Bourgoin (Episode #344) argued coined problems, frameworks, identity labels, and X vs. Y distinctions are often more achievable and equally effective alternatives to category creation. Naming a problem is one of the most powerful ownable idea strategies.

Position B: Own the category itself (4 supporters)

• Melton Littlepage (Episode #223) argued category leaders capture disproportionate economics and that the goal is to establish undeniable market leadership perception in the category itself—not just own a problem name. Analyst recognition (Gartner, Forrester) requires a category name, not just a problem name.
• Maura Rivera (Episode #301) is actively pursuing ownership of "agent marketing" as a category through books, summits, and frameworks—explicitly framing the goal as owning the category, not just a problem statement.
• Dave Gerhardt (Episode #214) cited HubSpot winning with "inbound marketing" philosophy and Drift creating "conversational marketing" movement as examples of owning a category narrative—framing category/philosophy ownership as the winning move in commoditized markets.

Support summary: 4 vs. 4

Context dependency: Partially context-dependent. Problem-language ownership may be more practical for earlier-stage or resource-constrained companies, while full category ownership may be more relevant for well-funded companies with long time horizons. However, both groups are giving general B2B marketing advice without explicitly restricting to a specific stage, so genuine disagreement remains.

Trend note: The most recent guests (Katelyn Bourgoin, Episode #344, April 2026; Brendan Hufford, Episode #242, May 2025) favor problem-language ownership over category creation. The category-ownership advocates are clustered in earlier episodes (Episodes #214, #223, #301). This may reflect a maturing view that category creation is overrated relative to simpler problem-naming approaches.

What this means for you: This choice determines where your marketing team invests its content, analyst relations, and brand-building budget. Owning a problem name is faster and cheaper; owning a category requires sustained multi-year investment and analyst engagement. Consider your stage, resources, and time horizon before committing. Note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive—Kyle Coleman's "go-to-market bloat" example shows that owning a problem name can be a stepping stone toward broader category ownership.

---

What NOT To Do

Do not create a new category just to avoid a crowded existing one. If you have compelling, differentiated value, you can win in a crowded market without inventing a new category. Category creation to escape competition—rather than because your product is genuinely new—is a costly mistake. (Source: April Dunford, Episode #309)

Do not conflate positioning with category creation. If you're searching for separation from competitors rather than because your product is fundamentally new, you're doing positioning. Calling it category creation sets the wrong expectations for timeline, investment, and measurement. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Do not attempt category creation without full founder and leadership commitment. Early-stage startups that try to play both category creation and quick customer acquisition often fail at both. If leadership will pivot based on short-term results, do not start a category creation effort. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Do not lead with product messaging when creating a new category. Category creation requires educating the market on a new concept and story before presenting your product. Leading with product features and capabilities before the category is understood will fall flat. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Do not try to build category consensus without analyst relations. Without Gartner, Forrester, or IDC giving the category credibility, you face a 10-year street fight for every deal. Analyst relations is not optional for category creation—it's a prerequisite for enterprise buyer credibility. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

Do not invent a category name from scratch without considering existing mental models. Buyers understand new things by comparing them to what already exists. Ignoring this principle makes your category harder to understand and slows adoption. (Source: Louis Grenier, Episode #322)

Do not use "corporate" as a positioning word. It carries negative connotations (old, boring, buttoned-up) and undermines the positioning you're trying to build. (Source: Ari Yablock, Episode #284)

Do not spread marketing budget across disconnected incremental campaigns when building a category. Category building requires concentrated, coordinated efforts. Peanut-butter-spreading budget across many small campaigns prevents the category narrative from gaining momentum. (Source: Kyle Coleman, Episode #198)

Do not follow the natural purchase flow when you're trying to create a category. If you're just acquiring, scoring, qualifying, and pitching leads with predictable win rates, you're not creating a category—you're competing in one. Category creation requires provoking a binary decision, not optimizing an existing funnel. (Source: Melton Littlepage, Episode #223)

---

Sources

Episode	Guest	Date
Episode #123	Kyle Coleman	2024-03-11
Episode #174	Jared Fuller	2024-09-09
Episode #182	Mychelle Mollot	2024-10-07
Episode #195	Andrew Davies	2024-11-21
Episode #198	Kyle Coleman	2024-12-02
Episode #206	Kyle Coleman	2024-12-30
Episode #214	Dave Gerhardt	2025-01-27
Episode #223	Melton Littlepage	2025-02-27
Episode #242	Brendan Hufford	2025-05-01
Episode #261	Mark Schaefer	2025-07-03
Episode #284	Ari Yablock	2025-09-22
Episode #300	Diane Wiredu	2025-11-03
Episode #301	Maura Rivera	2025-11-06
Episode #309	April Dunford	2025-12-04
Episode #314	Dave Gerhardt	2025-12-22
Episode #322	Louis Grenier	2026-01-19
Episode #344	Katelyn Bourgoin	2026-04-07