A “Why Us” page exposing competitor failures

TL;DR

The “Why Brainfish” page flips the standard approach. Instead of leading with advantages, the team spends most of the page exposing what’s broken in alternative solutions. The page includes an iceberg metaphor to make invisible implementation problems visible.

The company is also positioning itself against direct competitors and DIY workarounds simultaneously. This problem-first approach on a “Why Us” page works because it validates buyer skepticism and reframes evaluation criteria to favor Brainfish.

What makes Brainfish’s page stand out

I was checking out Brainfish’s homepage when something else caught my attention. It was the “Why Brainfish” link in the navbar. I clicked on it, only to discover a page worth talking about.

Most SaaS companies use their “Why Us” page to list advantages. Brainfish takes a more strategic approach: the team spends most of the page exposing what’s broken in alternative solutions before revealing their own strengths.

The page works because it makes invisible problems visible, then positions Brainfish as the only solution built to handle what others ignore.

The iceberg metaphor as a strategic frame

The page opens with a large iceberg visual under the headline: “The problem with traditional support is underneath the surface.”

The iceberg metaphor does specific strategic work throughout the page:

• It frames evaluation criteria. Instead of comparing surface advantages, buyers should evaluate what happens below the invisible interface.
• It creates a pattern recognition framework. Once you see the “surface vs. reality” distinction, you start evaluating every competitor through this lens. Brainfish is teaching buyers how to think about the entire category.
• It validates buyer skepticism. Prospects might already suspect that AI support tools overpromise. The iceberg framing says, “Your skepticism is correct, and here’s the reason why.”
• It makes problems concrete and nameable. Vague buyer concerns become recognizable failures: “no accurate contextual understanding,” “no real-time issue detection,” and more. You can’t articulate problems this specifically unless you’ve solved them.

The metaphor continues through the comparison tables, where Brainfish consistently reveals what’s underneath competitor approaches. This transforms the page from product comparison into buyer education about what evaluation criteria actually matter.

Positioning against competitors and workarounds

The comparison table doesn’t just show Brainfish vs. competitors. It also shows Brainfish vs. building in-house.

This three-column structure does strategic work that a simple us- vs. -competitors couldn’t accomplish:

• It eliminates the “we’ll just build it ourselves” objection. By showing custom development as a separate failing option, Brainfish addresses the internal build consideration before it becomes a deal-blocker.
• It positions Brainfish as a new category. The company doesn’t provide a “better chatbot.” The company is solving problems both chatbots and custom builds can’t handle.
• The comparison metrics aren’t arbitrary. They’re the factors that determine whether the tool actually scales or creates new operational problems.

Bottom line

The “Why Brainfish” page reveals what competitors do well at the marketing level. Most tools promise effortless automation, but behind the scenes, they depend on scripts, guesswork, and constant maintenance. They simply move the bottleneck, nothing more.

This positions Brainfish as the company telling you the truth competitors won’t. Instead of just claiming superiority, the company explains the systematic reasons why other tools mislead buyers during evaluation. And that’s a very interesting and powerful messaging frame.

When to apply this approach

• Your buyers are sophisticated enough to be skeptical. This page assumes prospects already doubt that AI support “just works.” If your market is still in the hype phase where buyers believe the promises, exposing problems might backfire.
• You have genuine capabilities to solve the problems you expose. Brainfish can only credibly claim to handle “deep complexity” because the company has built fundamentally different capabilities. But this approach won’t work if your advantages are only incremental improvements.
• The problems you expose are specific and recognizable. Vague descriptions like “doesn’t scale well” won’t create the same recognition moment as specific issues.
• Your category has established players using inadequate approaches. The “Why Brainfish” page works because there are well-known alternatives that buyers recognize as “the old way.” In emerging categories without legacy solutions, you have nothing concrete to position against.
• “Build vs. buy” is a real internal debate. Including the us- vs. -in-house solutions comparison makes sense when buyers seriously consider custom development.