If you’ve ever heard a sales leader say,
“Reps aren’t using the battlecards,”
the unspoken follow-up is usually:
“…so we need to retrain them.”

‍

That assumption is almost always wrong.

‍

Most sales battlecards don’t fail because Sales ignores them. They fail because they were never designed to be used in a live selling moment in the first place.

‍

Early warning signs usually show up quietly. Battlecards get longer over time. Reps “know” the competitor but hesitate when buyers bring them up. Assets look polished, reviewed, and approved—yet they rarely appear in Gong clips or deal reviews. Nothing is technically broken, but nothing is really working either.

‍

Design decisions shape whether battlecards actually do their job.

‍

The Hidden Assumption PMM Makes

‍

Design decisions shape whether battlecards actually do their job, and most of those decisions trace back to a well-intentioned assumption: if reps have all the information, they’ll know how to use it when it matters.

‍

PMM does exactly what the role trains for. Teams research competitors, document feature differences, build positioning narratives, and create thorough explanations that hold up in planning reviews. The output is usually smart, accurate, and defensible.

‍

It’s also optimized for reading, not selling.

‍

What often gets overlooked is the environment where battlecards are actually used. Not during quiet prep time. Not in enablement sessions. But mid-call, mid-question, with a buyer who wants a clear answer and has little patience for internal nuance. In that moment, design choices determine whether the battlecard supports the conversation—or adds friction by forcing interpretation.

‍

‍

Why More Information Makes Reps Slower

‍

In theory, more information should make reps stronger. In practice, it introduces hesitation.

‍

When a battlecard includes multiple angles, layered explanations, and too many “it depends” paths, it forces reps to make decisions in real time instead of guiding them toward one clear response. That moment of internal calculation—what should I say first, what should I skip, how do I frame this for this buyer—is where confidence erodes.

‍

It’s the difference between handing a pilot a full flight manual during takeoff versus giving them a cockpit checklist designed for that specific moment. Both contain important information. Only one helps you act under pressure.

‍

In competitive moments, clarity wins. Reps gravitate toward whatever helps them stay confident and keep the conversation moving. When tools introduce choice, interpretation, or delay, they struggle to survive real sales conversations. In those moments, battlecards slip out of the flow because certainty matters more than completeness.

‍

Competitive Knowledge vs. Competitive Readiness

‍

One of the most common breakdowns in competitive selling shows up in how teams define “being prepared.” Many organizations invest heavily in understanding competitors, yet struggle to translate that understanding into confident execution during live deals.

‍

Competitive knowledge covers the facts: what a competitor does, how offerings differ, and where feature gaps exist. Competitive readiness shows up in the moment. It guides what to say first, how to frame comparisons so they help buyers make decisions, and how to reinforce positioning without pulling the conversation off course.

‍

The difference is similar to watching game film versus calling the play. Film builds awareness and context. Play-calling determines what happens on third and short, when timing and clarity matter most. Deals are won in those moments.

‍

Battlecards often concentrate on knowledge, leaving readiness to chance. When execution support stops short of the selling moment, relevance fades. The asset still exists, but it no longer shapes how reps compete when it counts.

‍

How Battlecards Become Shelfware Without Anyone Noticing

‍

No one ever sends an email saying, “Hey team, we’ve decided to stop using the battlecard.” There’s no meeting. No announcement. No dramatic breakup. The asset just… quietly fades out of the workflow.

‍

It doesn’t get opened during calls. It doesn’t show up in deal reviews. It stops influencing how reps talk about differentiation. Not because anyone disagrees with it, but because it never quite fits into the moment where decisions get made.

‍

Over time, PMM refreshes it for the next launch. Sales keeps relying on muscle memory. Leadership assumes alignment exists because the asset exists.

‍

Battlecards become shelfware when design misalignment keeps them from fitting the way deals are actually sold.

‍

What “Usable in a Comparison” Really Means

‍

A real battlecard isn’t something reps study. It’s something they can glance at and immediately use.

‍

If a rep can’t quickly anchor the narrative, control the comparison, and reinforce one clear point of differentiation mid-conversation, the battlecard isn’t doing its job. Usability doesn’t mean simplistic. It means opinionated, buyer-framed, and designed for comparison moments—not internal completeness.

‍

The goal is to help the buyer decide, not explain everything. 

‍

If Battlecards Are Going to Work, They Need to Be Built Differently

‍

Making battlecards work starts with designing for real selling conditions. Live conversations move fast, buyers ask direct questions, and reps need clarity without hesitation. Assets that succeed in that environment are built to support those moments from the start.

‍

Effective battlecards share a few core traits:

• designed for live conversations, not offline study
• opinionated enough to guide what to emphasize and what to ignore
• clear enough that reps stay aligned without memorization
  
  

‍

That thinking shaped how we built our Sales Battlecard Template. The structure prioritizes clarity, comparison, and usability so the asset holds up in the moments that matter most.

‍

When battlecards don’t get used, another refresh rarely solves the problem. Reworking the structure does.

‍

👉 Here’s the practical template we use to fix that.

‍