We Need to Kill "All-in-One"
And other empty B2B marketing.
Today, I’m talking about the horrible, terrible, no good, very bad overuse of “all-in-one” in B2B marketing. It’s become a cliché, and we need to move on.
Speaking of moving on, I officially left funemployment last week, marking the the end of my year-long sabbatical. I’ll share more about my new role soon, but the fun isn’t over yet—my husband and I are launching another Substack called : The art of taking a sabbatical, long-term travel, itineraries, & menus from around the world. 🫒 We’re looking forward to having a space to capture those memories and to share stories that inspire your own far-flung adventures. Subscribe to Sabbatique if that appeals! 🍸
You’re here because you recently subscribed or signed up for one of my resources—my course waitlist on Maven, lightning lesson, or Notion templates.
If someone sent you this post and you’re not subscribed, join those people learning how to tactically advocate for brand at your company. 📬
We need to kill “all-in-one.” Like “AI-powered” (which I touched a few weeks ago), it’s become an empty statement that is probably working against your product and brand success.
The absurdity of “all-in-one”
First, I can’t read “all-in-one” without immediately thinking of this:
This meme really nails the absurdity of many “all-in-one” claims—just because you can combine multiple functions in a single product doesn’t mean you have to position as such.
The impossibility of “all-in-one”
Second, it’s a claim that can never be true. Nothing is all-in-one, because your company isn’t omnipotent or omnipresent. Maybe you found a genuinely helpful way to pull a few related services into one product, and maybe you were the first to package them in that specific way. For the average company, though, it’s a lazy marketing tactic that stops short of communicating why the package or bundle is a better solution than taking an unbundled, multi-provider approach.
Most companies claiming to be all-in-one might have one or two A+ products (if that) and layer on a handful of B and C and even D-grade features…that don’t actually perform better (or meet customers’ needs better) than a collection of purpose-built products from a handful of different companies. (That’s why integrations exist, right?)
Some of these companies even lack connectivity between the bundled tools or features for the all-in-one aspect to make a meaningful difference versus that unbundled stack. And despite what they may tell you in surveys or sales calls, buying behavior and extensive user research suggests that customers prefer three disparate A+ products to one A+ product and a B product and a C- product.
The hidden costs of “all-in-one”
Some customers may be shopping for bundled solutions specifically, but many aren’t—their pressing concern is their immediate pain point and figuring out whether your product can actually address it. So when you lead with an all-in-one message, you aren’t speaking to your customer’s true purpose and motivation.
1. The paradox of choice
While “all-in-one” solutions claim to simplify decision-making, they often lead to feature bloat, overwhelming users with options they don’t need or want, contradicting the simplicity these products aim to offer. It’s the paradox of choice—more options don’t always lead to better user satisfaction (or sales outcomes).
Zoom
Everything about Zoom’s over-stuffed, cluttered branding and website drives me out of my mind!! You do not need to call this Zoom Workplace! It’s just Zoom! Zoom’s meetings app may be leading the market based on its product-market fit, but it won’t maintain that position for long with weak brand-market fit and lack of clarity. Also, remind me, when’s the last time you heard someone complain about missing features from Zoom, or state a desire to add a bunch of stuff on to the experience to make it more “all-in-one?”
2. Jack of all trades, master of none
“All-in-one” products tend to sacrifice depth for breadth. The ones that don’t are the exception. These products might offer a wide range of features, but often lack the specialized capabilities that dedicated tools provide. This “jack of all trades, master of none” approach can leave users frustrated when they need more advanced functionality in specific areas. Are you setting yourself up to overpromise and underdeliver?
3. Scalability concerns
As businesses grow, their needs become more complex. An “all-in-one” solution that works for a small startup might quickly become inadequate for a rapidly scaling company. At the enterprise level, all-in-one becomes even more tenuous—large companies have the team infrastructure to deploy and manage a range of specialized solutions. If you’re a startup and already have your eye toward scaling upmarket and appealing to enterprise (and who isn’t these days?), then all-in-one positioning could actively be working against you.
4. Switching costs
Once a company commits to an “all-in-one” platform, switching costs can be prohibitively high, leading to vendor lock-in. Enterprise decision-makers know this, and while consolidation may be a key initiative at some points, they are not incentivized to buy any tool that might stifle flexibility (and innovation?) in the long run.
Obviously there’s a reason this language has gained popularity, and sometimes there’s truth behind the claim. If your product really does solve a broad problem set for a specific target audience, there may be a place for it. And the language is intuitively attractive—who wants to switch between a bunch of different tools all day, or get into bed on critical workflows with startups that seem promising but are often one miss away from folding entirely? But in my experience, “all in one” essentially never delivers on that promise, and prospects evaluate products that brand as such on their core functionality rather than “the total package.” If your core offering is solving customer problems really well, why muddle your message by trying to sound bigger or better than you really are? History has shown that overpromising doesn’t pay off.
iPhone
The iPhone is a great example of a product that could get close to a “true” all-in-one claim. It was the first phone that offered a touch-based interface, the calling and texting capabilities of a mobile phone, the music features of an iPod, and the ability to access the internet.
“Today we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one is a widescreen iPod with touch controls. The second is a revolutionary mobile phone. And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device.”
— Steve Jobs, 2007 iPhone presentation
The iPhone’s tagline could’ve been “The all-in-one smartphone.” But Apple didn’t go there. They didn’t even go with three-in-one. Because it wasn’t relevant to what was amazing about this new technology.
The iPhone’s first tagline was “Apple reinvents the phone.” Jobs’ keynote continues, “smartphones are definitely a little smarter, but they actually are harder to use. They’re really complicated. Just for the basic stuff people have a hard time figuring out how to use them. Well, we don’t want to do either one of these things. What we want to do is make a leapfrog product that is way smarter than any mobile device has ever been and super-easy to use. This is what iPhone is. So, we’re going to reinvent the phone.”
To claim all-in-one, you should be revolutionizing the status quo, introducing a true reinvention. And when you’ve done that…you don’t need a claim like all-in-one. You can focus on the transformational behaviors and outcomes your product enables by combining features in a way that’s never been done before.
Salesforce
Salesforce is a company that can honestly claim all-in-one, but they don’t market that way. They offer a f*ckton (to use the scientific term) of features that actually make some sense together and generally are at par with the competitive quality bar. They’re known for this style of [B2B product] enables [customer success] that Stripe, among others, is now doing. While the creative execution isn’t often to my personal taste (see: robot goat), I like it because it celebrates customer success while building credibility.
The relativity of “all-in-one”
All-in-one is in the eye of the beholder. If you’re saying, “An iPhone is a phone, camera, and iPod, all in one,” you’re truthfully and accurately describing how the product unites three (previously) disparate functions.
But more common on B2B websites is phrasing like “the all-in-one platform” or “the all-in-one operating system” or “an all-in-one bank account.” You don't know exactly what I want in my bank account, so how can you claim to have everything I could ever want?
The B2B world is so rife with “all-in-one” abuse that Marty Ringlein, a former Brex colleague, compiled this Tweet thread (back in 2022 I might add, when the all-in-one epidemic was at its peak) documenting how egregious it’s become.
Zoho
Zoho did $1B in revenue in 2023 and has ads up across SF right now. Despite that, I think they have struggled with brand-market fit. (See “all-in-one suite” in there below the header.)
Oyster
Oyster claims to address “All y our global employment needs in one place.” that may be compelling, but Oyster, Deel, Namely, Gusto (my former employer), Remote, Rippling (and several others) are competitors, and pretty much all of them use some version of “all the HR stuff you need in one place.” That’s a missed opportunity to differentiate.
Deel, Remote, & Namely
Deel claims to offer an “all-in-one Global People Platform”—what’s a people platform? What makes one global? What’s up with the Title Casing? Luckily this language is in the body copy and is paired with a clearer, more problem-oriented header: “Onboarding for global teams.”
Remote’s claim of “one place for everything” is especially egregious (also see: ClickUp). What does that even mean? Can I pick up my groceries there? Get my car repaired?
In a way, this says it all (i.e. says nothing).
Canva
It’s hard to argue with Canva’s corporate performance, of course, but that’s exactly my point—successful products often think they need to go broader to keep growing, so they go so broad as to lose all targeting and meaning. Lots of people get involved in the decision-making process and end up shipping their org chart (or intra-org tension), leading to bland, consensus-shaped messaging that doesn’t speak to a customer’s core needs.
Monday.com
Another egregious example. Core solutions…for what? “Span across” is redundant. “All on one platform” hangs in mid-air outside of a grammatical structure.
Their homepage features this beauty:
What is a work platform? What am I gaining visibility into? I’m pushing here because Monday.com actually offers products that clearly solve customer problems… they’ve just been buried below the fold and aren’t the focus of their branding. I get that it’s hard to spell out “we offer project management, CRM, development tracking, and customer service operations.” But when I read these headlines, I don’t make the connection to these offerings. Maybe every prospect is coming to their channels with some awareness already. I doubt it.
ClickUp
So this isn’t literally “all-in-one,” but for the longest time ClickUp’s tagline was “One app to rule them all.” Now they’re leading with being “everything” for “any type of work” and we know that’s not ending well.
Lemon Squeezy
“The all-in-one platform for running your SaaS business” is quite the claim! Especially when it’s followed by a list of exactly what the company actually offers…which isn’t everything a SaaS company needs. Why not just say it: “Lemon Squeezy is the best platform for managing SaaS subscriptions and the overhead that comes with it.”
SurveyMonkey
Why not just say “the research platform”? Come to think of it, maybe I need to write a post saying goodbye to the term “platform.”
HubSpot
HubSpot with the double-whammy!
Slack
Is everyone building a work operating system? Maybe I’m behind, but I like Slack for, you know, what it was built for and has long excelled at doing. Is shareholder pressure leading companies to bloat chasing growth? The answer is yes, and that’s what’s driving the enshittification of digital (and physical) products that so many consumers are feeling.
Tonal
And while B2B are the main offenders, consumer companies refuse to be left out.
HP
HP was so into all-in-one they named an entire product line of PCs after it! If this computer doesn’t do my laundry…
I mean…things have gone a bit far when Nescafé has a whole product line called “All in 1”—everything except quality, right?
Or when LG launches (and discontinues) a vacuum/mop. All in one…or two in one?
The big picture point of this post is that when companies are all using the same brand messaging, it ceases to convey meaning to prospects.
Some trend cycles take longer than others to die. Some stick around for years, often without being questioned, but no longer drive value the way they once might have. Smart marketers, and smart leaders, should call out our echo chambers and figure out the difference between effective, familiar turns of phrase and lazy language that doesn’t serve the customer (or the bottom line).
Figma
On Figma’s homepage, a tasteful testimonial gets at the same idea behind all-in-one without resorting to tired language.
Webflow
Webflow isn’t an “all-in-one site builder.” Instead, they emphasize the most important things you can do: create, optimize, and scale web experiences—and who can do it: marketers, designers, and devs. Try that format the next time you’re tempted to slap all-in-one on something.
Notion
When in doubt, figure out your product’s three most important verbs. For Zoom, maybe this would be meet, collaborate, and follow through. For Notion, when targeting engineering teams specifically, it’s scope, plan, and ship. “With the same tool” takes the place of “all in one place” but it’s more effective.
Alternatives to “all-in-one” marketing
Instead of relying on the “all-in-one” claim, B2B marketers could focus on:
Core competencies: Emphasize what the product does exceptionally well for a target audience, rather than trying to be everything to everyone.
ROI and efficiency: Demonstrate tangible benefits in terms of time saved, improved productivity, or cost reduction.
User experience: Focus on ease of use and intuitive design rather than the sheer number of features.
Scalability: Show how the product can grow and adapt as the customer’s needs evolve.
Customizability/Flexibility: Showcase how the product can be tailored to diverse yet specific business needs.
By letting go of the “all-in-one” security blanket, B2B marketers can create more meaningful, honest, and effective messaging that resonates with their target audience. Focus on real value, core strengths, and genuine innovation rather than trying to be everything to everyone. 🪰
What other marketing jargon needs a (constructive) teardown? 🚧
If you liked what you read, consider:
saying hi or dropping a question in the comments!
connecting with me on LinkedIn: 👩🏼💻 Kira Klaas
sending to a friend 💌 or coworker 💬
Guilty of the "all-in-one" here 😅 thank you for writing this, I got new ideas for rewriting my company's messaging. Looking forward to read the one about "platform"
Preach! --I'm reminded how products/flavors/extensions proliferate and bump up against the paradox of choice, and then the pendulum swings the other way and you have this "all in one" garbage. Best to focus on what your company does better than anyone else, and what your customers love you for, and use this clarity to inform strategy.