Friction Points vs. Funnel Stages

"What stage of the funnel is this for?"

It's usually one of the first questions that comes up when planning content. It's also a reasonable one. Most teams are working from some version of the same model—awareness, consideration, decision—and it provides a straightforward way to organize activity, allocate resources, and ensure coverage across a buying process.

The issue is not that the model is wrong. It's that it becomes less useful when applied too literally to the work of developing messaging.

Funnel stages describe where someone might be in a generalized process. They do not explain what that person is trying to understand, what concerns they are working through, or what is preventing them from moving forward. As a result, they offer limited guidance on what content needs to do in order to be effective.

In practice, content is rarely consumed as part of a clean progression. People do not reliably move from awareness to consideration to decision in a linear way, nor do they engage with content in the sequence it was planned. They arrive with partial context, revisit ideas at different points in time, and often share materials internally without the benefit of any surrounding narrative.

Friction Is the More Useful Lens

What tends to be more consistent is not the stage someone is in, but the presence of friction. At any given moment, a buyer is working through a specific set of uncertainties. They may not fully understand how something works. They may be unsure whether it applies to their situation. They may struggle to explain it internally, or to feel confident in the implications of moving forward. These moments of hesitation are where decisions slow down, and they are also where messaging has the greatest opportunity to have an impact.

In many cases, teams recognize the idea of friction but default to a narrow interpretation of what it means. Friction is often assumed to be about understanding the solution—how it works, what it does, and why it is different. As a result, a large portion of content is designed to explain and describe, with the expectation that clarity at that level will naturally move things forward.

In practice, a significant amount of friction is more practical than that. It tends to show up in questions like:

• How do we actually get started?
• What will this require from our team?
• How long will this take to implement or show results?
• What will it cost, and how should we think about that cost relative to alternatives?
• How do we know this is the right decision?

These are not questions about understanding the category. They are questions about moving forward within a real organization, with real constraints and real accountability.

They also tend to surface later in the process, often at the point where a decision is being socialized or evaluated internally. When they are not addressed directly, they create hesitation that is difficult to resolve through general messaging alone.

The Problem with Stage-Based Planning

This is one of the reasons stage-based planning can be misleading. It encourages teams to focus heavily on early-stage explanation while underinvesting in the types of content that help people navigate practical and organizational realities.

This suggests a different way to approach content planning. Rather than asking which stage a piece of content is meant to serve, it can be more productive to ask what form of friction it is intended to resolve. What is unclear? What is creating hesitation? What question has not been answered in a way that allows someone to proceed with confidence?

When content is built around those questions, its role becomes more concrete. A piece designed to explain how something works is not "top-of-funnel"; it is addressing a lack of understanding. Content that demonstrates where a solution fits is not "consideration-stage"; it is helping someone determine relevance. Materials that outline outcomes, tradeoffs, or implementation realities are not simply "decision content"; they are enabling internal alignment and justification.

Function over Format

This distinction may seem subtle, but it has practical implications. Content mapped to funnel stages often ends up being defined by format—blogs, case studies, product pages—rather than by function. Content mapped to friction points, by contrast, is defined by the problem it is solving for the reader. That tends to produce work that is more direct, more useful, and more resilient across different entry points.

It also better reflects how content is actually used. In many cases, a single page or asset needs to stand on its own. It may be encountered for the first time or revisited after a gap. It may be forwarded internally to someone who has no prior exposure. In those scenarios, its effectiveness depends less on its place in a sequence and more on its ability to resolve a specific uncertainty.

A Different Starting Point

None of this makes funnel stages irrelevant. They remain useful for structuring programs, reporting on activity, and aligning teams around a shared framework. But they are not, on their own, a sufficient guide for developing messaging that works in real conditions.

In practice, this tends to look like a shift in how content is planned and evaluated. Instead of starting with stages, teams start by identifying where hesitation tends to show up. What questions come up repeatedly in sales conversations? Where do deals slow down? What needs to be explained more than once?

From there, content is developed to address those specific points of friction. Some pieces focus on clarity—explaining how something works in straightforward terms. Others focus on relevance—helping a buyer see where it fits, and where it does not. Still others are designed to support internal conversations, making it easier for someone to explain and justify a decision to others.

Over time, this tends to produce a different kind of content system. Less defined by format or funnel position, and more by its ability to resolve specific uncertainties as they arise.

If the goal is to improve the effectiveness of marketing, it is worth shifting the primary question. Not: "What stage is this for?" But: "What problem is this solving for the buyer right now?"

That shift tends to lead to clearer content, more focused messaging, and ultimately, more momentum in the moments where decisions are actually made.