Main idea

Defining product positioning as "the context that lets the customer understand the product's value — category, alternatives, target, differentiation, reason to buy now" is not enough to make it usable. What makes it usable is the line that separates it from messaging, value proposition, tagline and campaign: four words the same people use in the same meetings, each of which designates a different piece of work.

A definition taken alone describes a centre. It says nothing about the edges, and the edges are precisely where ambiguity lodges. That is why the question "which terms can this one be confused with?" is not a comfort section in a glossary entry: it is often the part that does all the work.

The form that works redefines each neighbour positively rather than denying it: you do not write "this is not messaging", you write what messaging is. The reader leaves with two boundaries, not with a refusal.

Why it matters

This changes what you write first in an entry: before polishing the definition, you list the neighbouring words already circulating in the team's conversations.

It also explains why an isolated entry defines badly. The term exists only in contrast: a pair of entries citing each other at the top of their confusions is worth more than two perfect definitions each written in its own corner.

Nuances and limits

Not all neighbours are equal: a word that is never confused with this one in real exchanges weighs the entry down without delimiting anything. The list is filled with attested confusions, not with theoretical proximities.

And the boundary can be asymmetrical: campaign is rarely confused with positioning, whereas the reverse happens all the time.

Open questions

• Should you keep a record of the confusions observed in meetings to feed this section, or is writing it from memory enough?