Born from the desire to craft better B2B

If you are running or planning a Webflow site, you'll likely want to consider how to measure performance. Google Analytics 4 and Webflow Analyze approach that differently once consent, traffic levels, and reporting requirements are factored in, which affects how much you can actually measure and act on.

Webflow Analyze

Webflow Analyze is built for immediacy; it sits inside your site, requires minimal setup, and gives you a clear view of what is happening without needing to configure events or build reports. Because it's essentially layered on top of each page in the designer, you can not only see where users are coming from and which pages they land on, but how they move through the site, where they stop scrolling, what they click on, and where they go next. For most marketing teams, that covers a large part of what they actually need day to day, especially when the goal is to sense-check performance and optimise pages for engagement, rather than run deep analysis. If campaigns are driving the right traffic, you'll still want to know if users are reaching key pages, and if they're continuing through the site as expected. Webflow Analyze removes the friction and technical roadblocks of digging through dashboards and translating the data into something usable. However, if you're looking for granular event tracking, advanced segmentation, or the ability to build out more complex attribution models, Webflow Analyze isn't your tool here. It tells you what is happening clearly, but it is not designed to answer more detailed or technical questions.

Google Analytics 4

Google Analytics 4 is built for completeness. It tracks users across sessions, captures events at a detailed level, and allows you to build a much more comprehensive view of behaviour over time. If you need to understand specific interactions, track conversions precisely, or analyse journeys across multiple touchpoints, GA4 gives you that flexibility and depth. However, the trade-off is usability; out of the box, it is not particularly clear, and most of the value comes from how well it is set up. To get meaningful insight, you often need to define events, structure your reporting, and spend time interpreting what you are looking at. Without that, it can feel like you have a lot of information but no clear answers. The technical learning curve with GA4 isn't insignificant, so although it's powerful, it asks more of the team to make it truly useful.

In practice, it comes down to the questions you're trying to answer, and whether you have enough measurable data to answer them.

Webflow Analyze vs GA4 in practice

In practice, it comes down to the questions you're trying to answer and whether you have enough measurable data to answer them. For example, if you want to understand how a campaign is performing, where users are landing, and what they do next, Webflow Analyze is great and will likely get you there faster. It's also easier to read and to trust at a glance, and fits naturally into how marketing teams sense-check performance and optimise pages directly in the designer. However, that only holds if there is enough data to work with. Analyze can only report on users who have actively consented, and if traffic is low, and only a portion of that traffic is measurable, the numbers can become too small to draw reliable conclusions from. For UK and EU sites relying on consent, that dataset can shrink very quickly.

With consent mode, Google Analytics 4 behaves differently, and it can still report and model data beyond fully opted-in users, which means it can often recognise a higher number of visitors on exactly the same site. It's not as immediate, but this does mean it remains usable at lower traffic levels where Analyze can appear almost empty.

Taken together, the two tools serve different roles. Webflow Analyze is useful for understanding how individual pages are performing, how users engage with content, and where to optimise layouts, messaging, and flow. Google Analytics 4 provides the deeper layer, helping you understand behaviour over time, measure conversions, and connect activity across campaigns and channels. If you need to track specific interactions, build detailed conversion funnels, or connect behaviour across multiple channels and sessions, GA4 along with Google Tag Manager becomes necessary regardless.

A lot of B2B teams default to “we need a rebrand” when things start to feel off. In reality however, the underlying thinking is often still sound. The audience is the same, the positioning makes sense, and the business is moving in the right direction. However, what has changed is the way the brand is being applied.

How brands drift over time

Over time, brands drift. Not in a dramatic way, but through small, everyday decisions that slowly move things off course. A slightly different layout here, a new colour there, a deck that does its own thing, a landing page that feels disconnected. None of it feels like a problem in isolation, but it adds up.

You end up with a brand that looks familiar, but no longer feels consistent. Good work still happens, but it is uneven. Some pieces land well, others feel off, and there is no clear thread holding it all together. And when that happens, the brand stops behaving like a system and starts behaving like a collection of individual outputs.

That lack of cohesion creates drag. Teams spend more time making judgement calls, reviewing work, and fixing inconsistencies than they should. It becomes harder to maintain quality, not because the team lacks capability, but because the framework they are working within is no longer clear.

That is usually the point where a refresh is needed.

A refresh is not about redefining the business. It's simply about bringing the brand back in line with what is already true.

What a refresh actually does

A refresh is not about redefining the business. It's simply about bringing the brand back in line with what is already true, and making it usable again in a practical sense. It takes what exists, and tightens it, turning a loose set of ingredients into something more structured and reliable.

That means redefining how the brand actually behaves in real work; how layouts are approached, how typography and colour is applied, and how everything is used intentionally across different formats. As with any well-coded brand, this gives the team a clearer way of working, not just a set of assets.

In redefining and tightening brand rules, work becomes more consistent because there is less ambiguity. This also means production can also speed up simply, particuarly when volume increases, because fewer decisions need to be made. Output starts to build on itself, rather than varying each time something new is created.

None of this requires a new strategy. That is the key difference. If the core thinking still holds, a rebrand is unnecessary. The business does not need to redefine itself, it just needs to express itself properly.

The need to rebrand tends to either build over time, or comes at a point where the business needs to change direction and the brand needs to move with it. In either case, the business has moved forward while the brand has stayed where it was. Eventually that gap becomes hard to ignore, and tends to show itself in a few consistent ways:

1. You can’t clearly articulate what the business is anymore

Brand management is essentially co-owned by all employees. It doesn't simply live with the marketing team, but in how everyone works with it. Brands are living and evolving things, and particularly at larger companies this often means descriptions become subjective, and language shifts where different people explain the company in different ways. This might mean sales teams are saying one thing, the marketing team another, and customers are left putting it back together in whatver way resonated with them the most.

This isn’t a copy issue; it usually means the underlying definition of what the business is, who it’s for, and why it matters simply isn't in focus. A rebrand forces clarity and resets the core thinking, so everyone is on the same page.

2. Your product or offer has outgrown the way the brand is structured

Many brands are built around a simpler version of the business. As the product expands or the offer becomes more layered, the brand starts to stretch. This becomes apparent in fragmented messaging, inconsistent naming, or different parts of the business feeling disconnected from each other. At that point, the issue is structural; a rebrand allows you to rebuild the brand around what the business actually is now, so it can scale without constant workarounds.

It rarely shows up as one big issue. It’s usually small delays, repeated conversations, and constant correction. At that point, the brand is no longer supporting the team.

3. You are blending into the category

As markets mature, they converge. Competitors start to sound and look similar, often drawing from the same references and making similar claims. If your brand sits within that, even the strongest products start to feel interchangeable, and it's harder to create separation. It's a choice of standing out or blending in. A rebrand gives you the chance to sharpen how you are positioned and express that difference clearly enough to be recognised.

4. Internal teams aren’t aligned on how the brand should show up

When the brand isn’t clearly defined, teams interpret it differently. Output varies, decisions take longer, and more time is spent debating than producing. This isn’t just a design issue. It points to a lack of shared understanding about what the brand is and how it should behave. A rebrand creates that shared foundation, making it easier to stay consistent without constant oversight.

5. The brand is starting to slow you down

This is where it becomes more obvious. Work takes longer to produce, decisions are harder to make, and more effort is required to get the same result. You notice longer ramp times in conversations, more reliance on explanation, and a heavier lift to establish credibility. It rarely shows up as one big issue. It’s usually small delays, repeated conversations, and constant correction. At that point, the brand is no longer supporting the team. A rebrand removes that friction so the business can move at the pace it needs to.

Rebrands take time and commitment, which is why they’re often delayed. But when the brand no longer reflects the reality of the business, incremental changes tend to fall short. The aim is to bring the brand back into line with what the business actually is, so it can do its job properly.

Still unsure whether you need a refresh or a full rebrand? Read more on that here.

In B2B, the final decision usually sits with a CMO or CTO. Of course, everyone knows that. What matters more though, is that they are almost never the first person engaging with you. They are not the ones booking the demo. They're not the ones reading your site in detail. And they're absolutely not the one comparing options side by side for days, weeks, or months. That work happens earlier, inside their team, exploring the market and narrowing things down. A shortlist is formed before leadership is involved at all, and so by the time a decision maker sees you, the shape of the decision has already been set.

Marketing as internal sales enablement

Although the people doing the early evaluation are not the buyer, they do control access to the buyer. They decide what gets discussed internally and how it is framed. So when they bring an option forward, they are the ones explaining what it is, why it is relevant, and how it compares to alternatives.

In effect, they are your internal sales advocate.

It is not just about attracting interest or signalling credibility. It's about supporting internal conversations you will never hear.

This shifts how B2B marketing should be thought about. It is not just about attracting interest or signalling credibility. It's about supporting internal conversations you will never hear. The job is to give teams enough to work with so they can explain you accurately, and move you forward without loss in translation.

That does not require cleverness or heavy messaging, but being conscious of how your story will travel when you are not there to tell it. What can be easily picked up and passed on is what survives the process.

Long B2B sales cycles are shaped upstream. If your marketing helps teams do the early selling for you, you are far more likely to be the option that reaches the decision maker in the first place.

Great branding can only be built on strategic clarity: knowing why you exist, who you are for, and how you want to show up. That clarity cannot be left to find it's own way – it has to be built top-down, with intention. Brand sprint workshops create a space where all stakeholders are present, and the big questions get answered in real time. Often for the first time, people hear each other’s perspectives – friction can often be part of the process – debate hard truths, and resolve the differences that would otherwise resurface later. Clarity and team alignment is key, and for that reason it's how we start all our branding work at OtherFolk®.

When you're appointing stakeholders, be clear on exactly why they're there beyond an additional opinion, and what unique view they bring to the table.

Who Needs to Be There?

Your agency/studio, and key decision-makers: founders, senior leadership, marketing leads, and anyone else with a stake in the brand. If someone is missing, decisions made in the sprint risk being undone once they weigh in. That said, it's important to keep the stakeholder group small – like any project, too many voices risk pulling the project apart, and creating more noise than neccesary. So when you're appointing stakeholders, be clear on exactly why they're there beyond an additional opinion, and what unique view they bring to the table. Attendance is non-negotiable for this group – it only works if the people who will see the project through is present to avoid suprises later on. Also: no devices, no distractions.

What Happens in a Brand Sprint Workshop?

The workshop runs through a series of structured exercises over the course of approximately three hours (with breaks). Each exercise exists for a reason:

1. The Five-Year Roadmap: This forces the team to think beyond today’s targets. Where does the brand need to be in two, three, or five years? What needs to be true in order for those targets to be met? Is it the same brand, products, or something different? This exercise sets ambition and ensures the brand is built with the future in mind, not just the present quarter.
2. Why / What / How: Starting with why you exist as a business defines the brand’s reason to exist beyond revenue. What problem are you here to solve for your customers? What impact do you want to have? What do you offer? How is that delivered? Are these clear and differential?
3. Values: Every brand claims to have values. A brand sprint cuts the list down to the three that genuinely guide behaviour. This makes them usable in practice, rather than wallpaper.
4. Audiences: You can't be everything to everyone. This exercise forces prioritisation. Who are the three groups that matter most? Decisions get sharper when you are clear who you are talking to.
5. Personality: Is the brand playful or serious? Modern or classic? Bold or understated? These simple scales spark debate and create agreement on tone and style.
6. Competitive Landscape: By mapping competitors, you see not just who you are up against but also where the gaps are. It is a visual way to decide where your brand should sit, and where it shouldn't.

Each exercise pushes the team to make choices, often tough ones. The point is not to avoid disagreement but to use it productively.

Summary

A brand sprint is three hours of focus that can save three months of drift. It gives you clarity, direction, and alignment, and it does it in a way that energises teams rather than drains them. The outcome is a clear foundation for brand development, websites, and content that everyone has a hand in shaping. If you're kicking off brand work, there is no better way to start.

Before you dive in to creating a new brand identity, it’s worth pausing to think about what really needs to be in place for the work to succeed. A rebrand is one of the biggest investments a marketing leader will make, and the pitfalls are rarely in the creative output itself. More often, the problems come afterwards – when organisations aren’t ready to manage what’s been created. Here are some considerations before you begin.

Ownership and governance

Who will steward the brand day to day? Not at a strategic level, but in the detail. Making sure when new icons are introduced, their weights and proportions match; that photo treatments stay consistent; that “almost right” colours don’t creep into decks. Each of those things might feel close enough, but line them up against the brand you paid for and the drift is obvious. And the impact is rarely instant – it’s two years of small shifts that erode value. Brands should always evolve, and guidelines should be exactly that – guidelines – but making sure the integrity of the brand you've created remains in-tact is a full-time team job.

Brands should always evolve, and guidelines should be exactly that – guidelines – but protecting the integrity of the system is a full-time job.

Capacity

As much as you may want to have an identity that rivals your favourite brand, making sure what’s created is realistic for the team you have in place is paramount. If your internal team is small, the identity needs to be simple to manage, with assets and templates that can be applied quickly without heavy oversight. If the approach is too complex, it will quickly break down in practice. Be realistic and clear from the outset about how asset creation and updates will actually be handled, and approach the brand system accordingly.

Agency alignment

Beyond the work, is your chosen agency, or studio, people you can have the right conversations with? Branding involves decisions that are rarely black and white, and so clarity often comes from pushing through difficult discussions. The right fit isn’t about portfolio alone – it’s about whether you trust them to be in the room with you for those conversations.

Scope of Assets

Finally, be clear on scope. A rebrand is never just a website refresh. It reaches into email signatures, white papers, editorial grids, social templates, presentations, signage, even the way fonts are distributed internally. Each of those touchpoints has implications for time and resources. If you don’t map the full scope upfront, you risk discovering gaps mid-rollout when momentum has already slowed. Think about this upfront, and save yourself the headache later on.

Final thoughts

A rebrand lives or dies in how it's carried forward. The creative process produces the system, but it’s ownership, governance, team capacity, agency fit, and a clear view of scope that decide whether it stays intact in the years that follow. Put those things in place, and the work you invested in has the best chance of holding together and delivering value long after launch.