At Story99 we’ve been working with several AI native clients on their positioning (use-cases extend from marketing all the way to fund-raising).
Some clear patterns and understandings have emerged. This blog is an attempt to summarize some of that, hopefully helping founders in making the right positioning decisions about their offering / startup / product.
<aside> <img src="notion://custom_emoji/3c35a317-d438-469f-a88e-a21523d2b515/356011d7-387b-8007-b573-007a75f83db8" alt="notion://custom_emoji/3c35a317-d438-469f-a88e-a21523d2b515/356011d7-387b-8007-b573-007a75f83db8" width="40px" />
Story99.com is a Branding & Storytelling Consultancy for B2B, Tech & Deeptech
</aside>
For roughly two decades, B2B software / SaaS positioning followed a script that worked because the underlying approach barely moved - you picked an ICP, found a wedge, built a tool that made one part of someone's job faster, priced it per seat, and expanded inside the account as usage grew.
Whatever you were selling - the feature set, the workflow, the integration - was “durable”. A CRM in 2015 looked a lot like a CRM in 2020. And that’s why the SaaS land-and-expand script worked.
That assumption no longer holds for AI native solutions.
The ‘durability’ logic that held true earlier, doesn’t apply any more.
Today, the capability sitting underneath an AI product is moving on a curve that can outpace the roadmap, the pricing model, and sometimes the entire category it was built for.
The feature that justified the seat price earlier can now simply be absorbed into the next model release for free. And therefore, trying to position an AI-enabled product / solution as "software with an AI feature bolted on" is unlikely to work. We are noticing this for every client that we work with.
| Dimension | SaaS-era positioning | AI-native positioning |
|---|---|---|
| 1. What you sell | The tool / license "This makes your team faster” | The outcome / completed work "This result is handled” |
| 2. Language | Productivity, efficiency, time saved (use-aligned) | Profit, cash flow, capacity (business-buyer aligned) |
| 3. Moat | Switching cost, integrations, workflow lock-in | Proprietary data, owned context, compounding accuracy |
| 4. Pricing model | Per seat, per license | Per outcome, usage, or value share |
| 5. Entry wedge | An underused budget or new category | An existing outsourcing line item |
| 6. Sales motion | Product-led / inside sales at scale | Domain-fluent, services-adjacent, high-touch |
<aside> 🔔
Subscribe to https://learnstory99.substack.com/ where we notify you when we update our existing frameworks and insights around storytelling, marketing and brand-building.
</aside>
The clearest dividing line in AI GTM right now is between products that make an employee work faster vs products that do the job directly (with or without human oversight).
