One of the most difficult conversations I have when developing a positioning strategy often begins with a perfectly reasonable objection: “But we do much more than that.”

It usually comes from experienced professionals who have spent years building their expertise, advising on complex matters and developing capabilities that are difficult to summarise in a few sentences. They’re right, of course. Their experience is broader than any single description could capture. Yet this is precisely where positioning becomes challenging. When you have many strengths, which ones should the market associate most strongly with you? And how do you make that decision without limiting future business opportunities?

For IP professionals, these questions are particularly relevant. A senior patent attorney may work across several technologies and industries. An IP consultancy may advise on strategy, valuation, transactions and commercialisation. All these capabilities may be commercially valuable, but giving them equal prominence can make it difficult for prospective clients to understand what makes an expert or firm particularly worth considering.

In my previous column, What Positioning Actually Means for an Expert-Led Business, I explored how positioning connects expertise with client relevance and business decisions. Now comes the harder part: deciding which strengths should shape how the market recognises you, particularly when several could support a successful business.

Why choosing is difficult for experienced experts

Expertise develops through accumulation. Every complex assignment, challenging client and unfamiliar industry adds another layer of knowledge and experience. Asking someone to prioritise among these capabilities may sound like asking them to disregard years of work. There is also a legitimate commercial concern. If a firm becomes strongly associated with a particular type of client or problem, could other potential clients assume it cannot help them? Could greater focus reduce the number of enquiries?

For a successful IP firm with several profitable practice areas, these concerns deserve consideration. However, avoiding the choice also has consequences. Consider a firm that communicates its extensive expertise, international capabilities, comprehensive services and commitment to excellence. Every claim may be accurate. But when competitors describe themselves in similar terms, prospective clients have little guidance about what makes one particularly relevant.

More importantly, the firm may continue attracting the assignments it is already known for while struggling to generate interest in the more strategically valuable work it wants to develop. A business can have a strong reputation and still be insufficiently recognised for the opportunities it wants to win.  This problem may remain invisible because existing client relationships continue generating revenue. Only when the firm tries to grow into new areas does it become clear that its reputation may no longer align with its ambitions.

Strategic focus without sacrificing professional breadth

One of the most important distinctions I make when working on positioning is between what a business is capable of delivering and what it chooses to become particularly known for. These two things do not need to be identical. Imagine a patent attorney with extensive experience in patent prosecution, portfolio management, licensing and technology transactions. Over the years, they have also become exceptionally skilled at helping investors assess IP risks associated with acquisitions. This work is commercially significant and represents an attractive opportunity for future growth. However, most enquiries still concern patent prosecution and portfolio management because these are the services for which the attorney is best known. The expertise to attract more transaction-related mandates already exists. What is missing is a sufficiently strong market association with that contribution.

Should the attorney reinforce the reputation that currently generates business or invest in becoming better known for the work they want to develop? There is no universally correct answer.

Maintaining the existing focus might be commercially sensible if demand remains strong. Developing a stronger association with IP-related investment decisions could be more attractive if the attorney wants to grow that area and has a credible advantage. Choosing the second direction would not require abandoning other services. Those capabilities could continue generating revenue while strengthening the advisor’s value in more complex transactions. What changes is the priority given to building a particular market association. This is also why I would be cautious about advising every expert to find a narrower niche. Specialisation can be effective, but focus can equally emerge from the business challenges an expert addresses, the clients they serve or the contribution they make to important decisions. The difficult part of positioning is often choosing between several genuinely good opportunities.

How do you decide what deserves priority?

In my experience developing positioning strategies for brands and businesses, the most useful insights rarely emerge from asking people what they would like to be known for. Personal ambition matters, but the decision needs a stronger foundation.

I would examine three considerations: what the business can credibly deliver, what its desired clients genuinely value and where the competitive environment offers an attractive opportunity.

The first requires an honest assessment of the firm’s strengths. Which assignments demonstrate expertise that is difficult to replace? Where has the firm consistently created substantial value? Why do clients choose it and continue working with it?

Sometimes clients value something different from what experts consider their greatest strength. A firm may pride itself on the technical sophistication of its analyses, while clients particularly appreciate its ability to help management reach difficult decisions with greater confidence.

The second consideration is commercial relevance. A capability may be intellectually impressive without addressing a sufficiently important client need. Conversely, something relatively ordinary to an experienced professional may be exceptionally valuable to clients facing a particular risk or opportunity. Understanding that difference requires examining the situations in which clients seek advice and the outcomes they want to achieve.

The third consideration is the competitive environment. Which capabilities are competitors already strongly associated with? Where is the market crowded? Are there commercially relevant needs that competitors address but have not made central to their reputation?

An attractive positioning does not necessarily require a unique capability. The opportunity may lie in a contribution your business can demonstrate more convincingly or become more strongly associated with than others. These considerations must be evaluated together. A distinctive capability has limited commercial value without sufficient demand. An attractive opportunity is difficult to capture without credibility. And a genuine strength may provide little advantage if competitors are already strongly associated with it.

Future ambition adds another dimension. A positioning based exclusively on past successes may reinforce a reputation the business has outgrown. One driven entirely by future aspirations may lack the evidence needed to convince clients. The strongest choice connects what the business has demonstrated it can do with the opportunities it has good reason to pursue next. Making that assessment can be difficult from inside an organisation, where partners have different priorities and established assumptions. An external perspective can help challenge those assumptions, understand how clients perceive the business and evaluate competing opportunities before investing in a particular direction.

The commercial consequences of choosing

Positioning becomes meaningful when the choice influences business decisions. A firm that wants to become recognised for advising technology investors on IP-related risks may need to develop stronger relationships within the investment community, demonstrate relevant experience and ensure potential referrers understand when to recommend it. Existing services and client relationships can remain important, while future business development efforts increasingly support the chosen direction. This is particularly relevant in relationship-driven markets such as IP advisory services.

Referrals reveal how a business is perceived. When someone recommends an expert, they usually communicate a reason: perhaps a technical specialisation, industry experience or the ability to manage a particular challenge. These descriptions influence which opportunities reach the firm. An expert may be capable of handling many different matters while repeatedly receiving referrals for only a small part of their work.

The question is whether that pattern reflects the business they want to build. If it does, reinforcing the existing reputation may be sensible. Otherwise, the firm needs to consider how it can credibly develop different associations. That requires consistency across its activities, relationships, communication and client experience. Positioning should also be reviewed as markets and client needs evolve. Yet constantly changing direction can prevent a recognisable reputation from developing.

What do you want your next opportunities to look like?

For experienced IP professionals, breadth of expertise is often the result of years of demanding work and can be a powerful competitive asset. Yet the market cannot be expected to give every capability equal attention. Choosing what you want to be particularly known for can influence the enquiries you receive, the mandates you are considered for and the direction of your future growth.

The question is not simply what you want the market to know about you. It is what you want that knowledge to lead to. Avoiding the decision may feel safer. But it also means allowing existing perceptions and past successes to shape your future without questioning whether they still serve your ambitions. Good positioning requires a choice. And that choice deserves the same strategic attention as any other decision about the future of your business.

Until then, a question to reflect on:

If you could become known for just one of the many valuable things you do, would you choose what brings you the most business today, or what could create the greatest opportunities tomorrow?

Giulia Donato

Brand & Communication Strategy Consultant | Executive Coach | Adjunct Professor
people & brand strategies
www.donatostrategies.com