Jobs to Be Done: The Framework That Reframes How You Position Brands

Jobs to Be Done is a theory of customer motivation developed by Clayton Christensen that reframes why people buy products. Instead of asking who the customer is, it asks what job they are hiring the product to do. That shift in question changes everything about how you position a brand.

Christensen argued that customers do not buy products because of demographic profiles or feature lists. They buy them because something in their life creates a need, a tension, a situation that requires a solution. The product gets “hired” to resolve that situation. Understanding the job, not the customer segment, is what leads to positioning that actually connects.

What Is the Jobs to Be Done Framework?

Clayton Christensen introduced the Jobs to Be Done framework through his work at Harvard Business School and popularised it in his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” and later in “Competing Against Luck,” co-authored with Taddy Hall, Karen Dillon, and David Duncan. The central idea is deceptively simple: customers hire products and services to get a job done. The job is the unit of analysis, not the customer.

Christensen used the example of a fast food chain trying to improve milkshake sales. The chain had done everything conventional market research recommends. They had segmented customers by age, income, and preference. They had asked people what they wanted in a milkshake. None of it moved the needle. When a researcher sat in the car park and simply observed who was buying milkshakes and when, a different picture emerged. A large proportion of milkshakes were sold early in the morning to solo commuters. They were not buying a treat. They were hiring the milkshake to do a specific job: keep them occupied and not hungry during a long, boring drive to work. The job was not “satisfy a sweet craving.” It was “give me something to do with my hand and keep me full until lunch.” That insight changes the product brief, the positioning, and the messaging entirely.

This is the kind of thinking that separates brand strategy that works from brand strategy that just looks good in a deck. If you want to go deeper on how positioning frameworks connect to commercial outcomes, the brand strategy hub at The Marketing Juice covers this territory in detail.

Why Standard Segmentation Misses the Point

I have sat in enough client briefings to know how most brand strategy starts. Someone pulls up a persona document. There is a name, an age range, a household income bracket, a list of interests that reads like a LinkedIn profile, and a stock photo of a person who does not exist. The room nods. The brief gets written. The campaign launches. And six months later, the client is asking why the messaging is not landing.

Demographic segmentation tells you who bought something. It does not tell you why. Two people with identical demographic profiles can be buying the same product for entirely different reasons. A 38-year-old professional buying a gym membership might be hiring it to lose weight, or to manage stress, or to have somewhere to go after a difficult divorce, or to signal a version of themselves they want to become. The product is the same. The job is completely different. And if your positioning is built on the demographic, you are speaking to none of them with any real precision.

When I was growing the agency from around 20 people to closer to 100, one of the most consistent mistakes I saw in new business pitches, including our own early ones, was leading with capability. Here is what we do. Here is our process. Here is our team. The prospect would listen politely and then say they would be in touch. The shift that changed our conversion rate was understanding what job the prospect was actually hiring an agency to do. In most cases, it was not “run better campaigns.” It was “give me confidence that this is under control so I can focus on other things” or “help me look credible to my board.” Once you understand the job, the pitch writes itself.

The Three Dimensions of Every Job

Christensen and his co-authors identified three dimensions to any job a customer is trying to get done. Understanding all three is what separates surface-level JTBD application from the version that actually sharpens positioning.

The functional dimension is the most obvious. It is the practical task the customer needs to complete. Get from A to B. Store my files. Send an invoice. This is where most product development focuses, and it is the dimension that feature-led marketing tends to address. It is necessary but rarely sufficient for differentiation.

The emotional dimension is what the customer wants to feel, or stop feeling, as a result of completing the job. Safety. Confidence. Relief. Pride. This is where most brand advertising operates, sometimes effectively and sometimes not, depending on whether it is connected to a real emotional job or just a mood board that the creative team liked.

The social dimension is how the customer wants to be perceived by others as a result of their choice. This is the dimension that drives a significant amount of purchasing behaviour in categories from fashion to financial services to B2B software. When a procurement director chooses a well-known vendor over a cheaper alternative, part of that decision is social. Nobody gets fired for buying IBM, as the old line goes. That is a social job being hired.

The brands that build lasting loyalty tend to address all three dimensions. BCG’s work on brand advocacy points to the connection between emotional resonance and word-of-mouth growth, which is consistent with what JTBD theory would predict: when a brand addresses the emotional and social dimensions of the job, not just the functional one, customers become advocates rather than just repeat buyers.

How JTBD Changes the Way You Write Positioning

Most positioning statements are written from the inside out. We make X for people who want Y. The product is the subject. The customer is a supporting character. JTBD inverts this. The customer’s situation is the subject. The product is the solution that gets hired to resolve it.

This is not a semantic distinction. It changes what you lead with in messaging, how you structure a homepage, what you put in a subject line, and what the creative brief asks the team to solve for. A brand that understands the job can speak directly to the moment of tension that triggers the purchase. A brand that does not understand the job speaks about itself and hopes the customer connects the dots.

One of the more useful exercises I have used with clients is what I call the “trigger moment” audit. You map the specific situation the customer was in immediately before they started looking for a solution. Not the demographic. Not the persona. The situation. What had just happened? What was the pressure? What were they trying to avoid or achieve? When you can describe that moment with precision, you have the raw material for messaging that feels like it was written specifically for the reader, because it was.

This connects directly to why brand strategy requires more than a visual identity and a tagline. The components that make a brand strategy durable are the ones that connect the brand’s promise to a genuine human need. JTBD gives you the language to identify that need with specificity rather than relying on vague emotional territory.

Where JTBD Fits in the Brand Positioning Process

Jobs to Be Done is not a replacement for every other research method. It is a lens, and like any lens it works best when you know where to point it. The most effective way I have seen it used is at the insight stage, before positioning is written, as a way of pressure-testing whether the brand is addressing a real job or a manufactured one.

The typical research process, customer surveys, focus groups, usage and attitude studies, tends to produce answers to questions the brand has already decided to ask. JTBD research is different. It uses in-depth interviews focused on the purchase moment: what happened just before you started looking, what alternatives you considered, what made you choose this product, what would have to change for you to stop using it. These questions surface the job in a way that structured surveys rarely do.

When I was judging the Effie Awards, one of the consistent patterns in the work that won was that the insight was specific and grounded in a real human situation, not a generalised emotional territory. The campaigns that did not win tended to have insights that were technically correct but not actionable. “Customers value trust” is not an insight. “Customers feel exposed when they have to explain a technical purchase to their manager” is an insight. JTBD research tends to produce the second type.

There is also a useful distinction between the job that triggers the purchase and the job that drives retention. These are often different, and brands that conflate them end up with acquisition messaging that does not translate into loyalty. A product might get hired initially because of a functional need and retained because of an emotional one. Understanding both is important for building a marketing organisation that can operate across the full customer lifecycle.

The Tension Between JTBD and Brand Archetypes

Brand archetypes, the Hero, the Caregiver, the Rebel, the Sage, and so on, operate at a different level of abstraction from Jobs to Be Done. Archetypes describe the personality and emotional register of the brand. JTBD describes the functional and emotional situation of the customer. Both are useful. Neither is complete on its own.

The tension between them is worth understanding. A brand can have a clearly defined archetype and still be positioning against the wrong job. I have seen brands with beautifully articulated Sage positioning, authoritative, knowledgeable, trusted, that were addressing a functional job when the real driver was a social one. The customer was not hiring the product to learn something. They were hiring it to look credible in front of their peers. The Sage archetype was right. The job it was being applied to was wrong.

The way to reconcile this is to use JTBD to identify the job first, then use archetype thinking to determine what personality and emotional register best serves that job. The archetype shapes how you communicate. The job determines what you communicate about. Getting those two things aligned is where brand strategy starts to produce measurable commercial results rather than just aesthetic coherence.

Consistency across touchpoints matters too, and not just visually. Maintaining a consistent brand voice is significantly easier when the team has a clear understanding of the job being addressed, because every piece of content and every communication can be evaluated against the same question: does this speak to the job?

Common Mistakes When Applying JTBD to Brand Strategy

The first mistake is treating JTBD as a product development tool rather than a positioning tool. Christensen developed it largely in the context of innovation and disruption theory, and a lot of the literature focuses on how to build better products. That is valuable, but for brand strategists the more immediate application is in understanding what job the existing product is already being hired to do, and whether the brand is positioned to reflect that job clearly.

The second mistake is identifying the functional job and stopping there. Most brand messaging that fails does so because it addresses the functional dimension competently and ignores the emotional and social ones. This is particularly common in B2B marketing, where there is a cultural bias toward rational argument. But B2B buyers are people. They have emotional and social jobs too. The CFO who needs to justify a software investment to the board is not just solving a functional problem. They are managing a social and emotional one. Messaging that only addresses the functional dimension leaves a lot of the decision unmade.

The third mistake is assuming the job is stable. Jobs shift over time, particularly in response to market changes, competitive pressure, and cultural shifts. A product that was hired primarily for a functional job five years ago may now be hired primarily for a social one. Brands that do not revisit the job periodically end up with positioning that was accurate when it was written and is no longer relevant. Brand loyalty is more fragile than most marketers assume, and one of the reasons it erodes is that the brand stops speaking to the job the customer is actually trying to get done.

The fourth mistake is using JTBD as a justification for ignoring brand awareness entirely. There is a version of this framework that gets misread as “just focus on utility and the customer will find you.” That is not what Christensen argued, and it is not commercially sound. The problem with focusing exclusively on brand awareness is real, but the solution is not to abandon brand building. It is to make sure brand building is anchored to a genuine job rather than floating in aspirational abstraction.

If you are working through how to apply this kind of thinking to a specific brand challenge, the broader collection of frameworks and approaches at The Marketing Juice brand strategy hub covers positioning, archetypes, and messaging in depth.

A Practical Way to Use JTBD in Your Next Positioning Review

You do not need a large research budget to apply Jobs to Be Done thinking. The most useful version of it I have used in agency and client settings involves five to ten in-depth interviews with recent customers, focused specifically on the purchase moment rather than product satisfaction.

The questions that tend to produce the most useful insights are: What was happening in your life or work that made you start looking for a solution? What alternatives did you consider, including doing nothing? What made you choose this product over those alternatives? What would have to change for you to stop using it or switch to something else? These questions surface the job, the competing jobs, the switching triggers, and the retention drivers in a single conversation.

From those interviews, you are looking for patterns in the trigger situation, not in the demographic profile of the person describing it. When you find a trigger that appears consistently across different types of customers, you have identified a job. That job becomes the anchor for your positioning work.

The final step is the one most teams skip: testing whether your current messaging speaks to that job or not. Pull your homepage, your key ad copy, your most recent campaign. Read it through the lens of someone in the trigger situation you have identified. Does it speak to their situation? Does it address the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of what they are trying to resolve? If it does not, you have a positioning gap, and you now have the language to close it.

Brand strategy that is grounded in a real job tends to be more durable, more internally aligned, and more commercially effective than brand strategy that is grounded in aspiration alone. That is not a criticism of ambition. It is a reminder that ambition lands harder when it is tethered to something true. Protecting brand equity over time requires that kind of grounding, especially as the tools and channels used to communicate it continue to change.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions