Those urgent fires often stem from messaging confusion. Marketing burning budget on leads who disappear after one call? Sales losing deals because champions can’t explain value? CS drowning in tickets because users have the wrong expectations?

These are symptoms of a deeper issue. The longer you wait to fix your software taxonomy and align your messaging, the more urgent and costly problems become.

If your messaging is truly working perfectly across teams, stages, and comms assets, then you wouldn’t benefit from this work.

You’re seeing the people who made it through your current messaging. But what about the qualified prospects who bounced because they couldn’t understand what you do? What about the sales cycles that drag on longer than they should?

Your current users prove your product has value. But they can’t tell you how many opportunities walked away before giving your software a chance.

You’re already paying this cost (and more) every month in hidden inefficiencies. You just don’t see it on a line item. Every prospect who walks away because they don’t ‘get it’ is lost revenue. Every extra month in your sales cycle is delayed cash flow. Every confused user is a churn risk. Every hour your teams spend explaining the same thing differently is wasted payroll.

And this isn’t “just taxonomy.” I map your current messaging & comms chaos, build new taxonomy based on user logic, then apply this structure across your website, marketing materials, sales demos & decks, KB, and other major assets. Moreover, this is not an ongoing expense. Working with me will take from 3 to 6 months depending on the complexity of your software and corporate dynamics.

You should see concrete, measurable improvements across your entire messaging ecosystem. Website visitors will move deeper into product pages instead of bouncing from the homepage. Your (product) marketing team might be able to launch new features faster and more easily.

Your sales team will spend less time on foundational explanations and more time on value discovery. Sales cycle should shorten from first contact to close. New users will complete onboarding faster without needing support intervention.

These changes happen because a robust software taxonomy creates logical flow throughout your entire customer journey. We’ll establish baselines before starting so you can measure the specific improvements.

My work acts as revenue enablement and improves ops efficiency. Proper software taxonomy & info architecture across assets (website, demos, decks, user docs) remove friction from your entire GTM engine.

Prospects understand your product faster. Copy hits harder. Sales conversations unfold organically without constant clarifications. Customers form the right expectations about the software, so they churn less.

Copywriters work on surface-level language. They can’t fix structural taxonomy problems or create the systematic thinking your teams need. You’ll end up with a different copy around the same confusing logic.

What I do is rebuild the logic of how you organize & nest capabilities so everything makes sense from the ground up. It’s like the difference between repainting a house with a cracked foundation versus actually fixing the foundation.

Absolutely. Software taxonomy along with info architecture has been a core discipline in engineering, UX, and content design for decades. Every major software company has teams dedicated to organizing & communicating complex capabilities.

But most companies apply this thinking to internal tools and user interfaces, but overlook how they structure & connect capabilities for external comms.

Understanding that you should organize things logically is common sense. Doing it systematically across hundreds of capabilities while balancing user mental models, technical realities, and messaging assets isn’t.

The difficulty is in the details. I’m talking about figuring out which capabilities naturally group together in users’ minds, establishing boundaries so features don’t overlap, or building a structure that accommodates features you haven’t built yet.

Your team knows this makes sense but they’re deep in the product and don’t have dedicated time to step back and reorganize everything from the user’s perspective.

Your team has been living with the current taxonomy for so long that it feels natural to them, even when it’s confusing to prospects or customers. An outsider brings fresh eyes to spot patterns and gaps that internal teams miss.

Moreover, I’m not attached to past decisions or internal politics. I can ask “Why do you organize it this way?” without anyone feeling defensive. Your team has the domain expertise. I bring the methodology & objectivity to reorganize it clearly

Absolutely. Complex products need this the most. The more capabilities you have, the more critical it is to organize & present them logically. A systemic approach to taxonomy thrives in complexity, breaking down intricate capabilities into relationships & hierarchies that make sense.

The real challenge isn’t the complexity, but the years of product evolution where features were added without a structural approach.

Good software taxonomy separates core capabilities from use cases and industry particularities. I map out how capabilities work together in people’s minds, then organize them accordingly.

Based on that, we can create modular messaging frameworks that show how those same capabilities apply to different industries or personas.

The opposite. B2B SaaS companies struggle to organize their capabilities. They either list features randomly, create artificial modules, or bury their best capabilities under vague labels. This creates generic messaging where everyone sounds the same.

Well-defined, logical taxonomy actually makes you stand out. Your unique value becomes more apparent when it’s not lost in poor categorization or info architecture.

Good taxonomy is strategy-agnostic. It’s about organizing and communicating your product capabilities in a way that makes sense, regardless of positioning. Whether you pivot to new markets or ICPs, add features, or shift business models, you’ll still need well-defined ways to organize & explain what you do.

I’ve noticed that resistance usually comes from teams being burned by previous “messaging overhauls” that ignored their input or created more work. I’m not the outsider who comes in to impose a solution.

I focus on participatory work, involving your marketing, sales, and CS teams in building the solution together, without overburdening them with extra work.