When the product is ready, but the brand isn’t.

Two standards of rigour in one business

If your product deserved years of insight-led development, why doesn’t the way you sell?

It’s more common than most businesses are willing to admit – nobody has researched how commercial buyers and users would understand the new version, how they might refer to it, or how it could reposition everything else in the portfolio.

Yet the brand is the part of the business your buyer meets first. Long before anyone experiences the product, they experience the name, the story and the promise. Applying rigour to product development and improvisation to brand and marketing will harm the launch.

Why it happens

Brand and product teams suffer from this issue because they often run on separate roadmaps with separate owners and separate definitions of ‘done.’

​

Engineering milestones, regulatory approval or manufacturing capability define product readiness. Brand readiness can either be left till very (very) late or not appear on that roadmap at all. So launch dates get set by when the product is closer to being finished, and the brand team inherits whatever time is left over. They are often not involved in the timeline planning, which means that by the time the brief lands, it can feel like the runway is already gone.

What actually takes time when you’re marketing a new product?

Part of the problem is that product teams underestimate how much genuine work sits inside “the brand bit”. It’s not their fault – it’s likely that no one has ever explained it to them.

Naming

If you need to create a new name, the name needs creative development, linguistic checks across markets, and trademark screening. In regulated sectors, it may also need regulatory review. Rush it and you risk launching a name you cannot legally keep. The time frame for a naming project can run into over three months easily.

Portfiolio architecture

This is often the hardest problem in many of our clients’ situations. A new version cannot simply replace the old. Existing customers, existing contracts and existing equity all need a considered migration story. Get the architecture wrong and the new product cannibalises the old one, or worse, confuses buyers into choosing neither. You’ll likely want to move customers from version 1 to version 2 of your product, but this needs to happen over time to allow stocks to run down.

Positioning research.

The product was validated with users. But, the proposition was not validated with buyers. Those are different audiences asking different questions, and closing that gap requires actual research, not internal opinion or leaning on AI’s perspective. If it’s global research you need to do this; it can take in the region of 8 weeks – longer if the segmentation is difficult. E.g., finding someone who is a surgeon specialising in prosthetics is harder to enrol in market research than a consumer who buys toothpaste.

Internal alignment.

Your own people champion the brand before the market sees it. Sales teams, customer success and leadership all need to tell the same story. Skipping an internal launch undermines the whole campaign, so take time to explain the new messaging/naming or brand changes internally.
Aim to do this 3-4 weeks before it goes live publicly to give teams enough time to ask questions and embed this into new sales conversations. To read more about this check out this article

How to put brand and marketing on the product roadmap

The solution here is for brand development to become a workstream on the product roadmap initially, triggered by product milestones rather than launch planning.

​

In practice, that means brand and marketing work starts at the same window as regulatory or manufacturing planning, not months later. It means a shared definition of “ready” that includes commercial readiness alongside product readiness. It also means someone senior owns the connection between the two teams.