Revenue OS · Brand, demand and conversion in one system
Marketing writes copy legal never approved. Sales answers objections with claims nobody verified. When a regulator or a customer asks where a claim came from and who signed it off, nobody can answer. MarketMachine is the go-to-market platform where they can.
A 30-minute walkthrough with the team who built it. No card, no trial clock.
MarketMachine · Positiona · Claim registry
IllustrativeCLAIM-2291 · v3
Approved“Carbon neutral delivery on every UK order.”
Downstream
1 draft blocked
A campaign draft used wording revoked on 2 Feb. It cannot be published until it is rewritten from an approved claim.
Our operating brands, running on MarketMachine.
The broken system
Brand lives in one tool, campaigns in another, the pipeline in a third. Each is competent inside its own walls and blind at the edges. A claim written and evidenced in the first never reaches the third, so it gets retyped from memory by whoever needs it next.
Frontify · Bynder · Brandfolder
Asset managers hold logos, guidelines and files. None of them holds a claim with its evidence, its channel and jurisdiction scope, its expiry or a way to revoke it — and nothing downstream is obliged to obey them anyway.
HubSpot · Marketo · Pardot
Marketing automation will happily publish any sentence you type. Nothing checks whether the claim inside it was ever approved, whether the evidence still stands, or whether it expired last quarter.
Salesforce · Gong · Outreach
Sales tooling measures the conversation. What the rep actually asserted in order to win the deal lives in a wiki page at best, and in their head at worst.
OneTrust · Usercentrics
Consent platforms govern the perimeter. They cannot tell you who approved the performance claim in the email that went out this morning.
Nobody is doing anything wrong. The claim is simply crossing three companies, and no vendor is accountable for the whole journey.
The platform
Integration is the mechanism, not the product. What you are buying is that a claim carries its evidence, its scope and its approver with it — and that the system refuses to let an unapproved one through. That is enforced in four places, not asserted in one.
Exact wording, evidence links, channel and jurisdiction scope, effective and expiry dates, a named approver and one-way revocation. Approved versions are immutable — you cannot edit one, you create a new draft.
Campaign copy is composed from the registry rather than typed into an empty field. The approved wording is the raw material, so nothing reaches a draft that was not approved first.
A rep answering "prove it" on a call draws from the same registry. Improvising a new claim inside an objection response is not a discouraged behaviour here — it is not an available one.
The gate is enforcement, not a warning banner you can dismiss. Unapproved claims do not reach a profile, an export or a downstream event.
The six-point brand compliance test is computed from persisted records at an explicit point in time, and it names the missing evidence for every checkpoint that fails. Conversion maturity is measured from live template and outbox evidence. Not a checklist somebody ticks — the system proves its own state.
Integer minor units and an explicit currency everywhere, with FX provenance. Scoring in basis points that sums to exactly 10,000, round-half-up, with manager override audit trails. Windowed metrics that state their window and their currency — and say plainly when a figure cannot be measured.
A failed dispatch throws rather than pretending to have succeeded. Every outbound message is a draft until a person approves it. AI assistance is draft-only, the brand auditor is read-only, and the agent registry refuses to start if an agent claims it can write brand commitments.
The modules
Each module is a complete product with its own datastore and its own permissions. They talk through versioned contracts, never by reaching into one another’s databases — which is what makes it possible to prove which system approved what.
The command centre
One sign-in, one customer journey. The master read model stitches brand, demand and conversion into a single timeline per customer, and every entry keeps the ID of the source event in the module that produced it.
Claim governance
Where a claim is written once, evidenced once and approved once. Scope, expiry, named approver and one-way revocation are properties of the record, not conventions in a spreadsheet.
Demand generation
Campaigns and capture, assembled from approved claims. Consent channels and evidence are checked before a lead is handed onward, and anything ambiguous stays in review rather than being routed.
Live message transport is not wired. Ignita produces drafts, manual exports and a sandbox channel. It does not send on your behalf.
Sales conversion
Pipeline, objection handling and outcomes. Reps answer objections from verified claim facts, and every win and loss returns as evidence the positioning can learn from.
The feedback loop
Converta writes objections and win/loss evidence back to Positiona. Your claims and your positioning get better because of what actually happened in the deals you lost. In every other stack these three products are sold by three different companies, so that loop cannot close.
Positiona to Ignita
Approved claimsA published brand profile emits a canonical event. Ignita composes campaign copy from the approved wording, never from a blank field.
Ignita to Converta
Qualified leadsA capture queues a handoff only when routing permission, consent channel and evidence all permit it. Anything unknown stays in review.
Converta to Positiona
Outcomes and objectionsWins, losses and the objections raised along the way return as evidence. Lost and stalled outcomes open draft improvement proposals.
MarketMachine to The whole loop
One customer journeyThe command centre projects all three streams into a single timeline, and keeps the source event ID on every entry.
The guardrail. Nothing here auto-approves. Feedback opens a draft proposal for a person to accept or reject; it never rewrites a brand strategy on its own.
Why now
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gives the CMA power to fine companies directly for breaches of consumer law, including misleading environmental and performance claims, without going to court first. At the same time AI is generating marketing copy at volume, which multiplies the number of unverified claims in circulation. The penalty rose while the volume exploded.
A claim registry with evidence, scope and expiry stops being brand hygiene and becomes risk control. That is the argument, and it has a date on it.
Sectors that already make claims somebody can challenge.
6 Apr 2025
DMCC Act 2024 consumer-protection regime in force
Source: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
10%
of global turnover — maximum CMA penalty
Source: DMCC Act 2024, penalty thresholds
No court
the CMA can fine directly, without proceedings
Source: DMCC Act 2024, direct enforcement powers
Pricing
The three modules genuinely stand alone — Positiona works whether or not Ignita and Converta exist. Run Positiona alongside your HubSpot. Run Ignita alongside your Salesforce. Expand when you feel the seam between your existing tools.
One discipline, landing beside the tools you already run.
All three modules, one sign-in, and the feedback loop closed.
For teams whose claims are already somebody else’s job to challenge.
We do not publish a price list. Pricing is set per organisation on scope and seat count, and you get a written quote after the demo rather than a number that changes when you ask a second question.
Resources
Including the ones a landing page normally leaves out. If you want the long version, ask for the positioning brief on the call.
HubSpot has no claim registry. Ask your team where the evidence for your last performance claim lives, who approved it, and when it expires. The silence is the answer. MarketMachine is designed to sit beside HubSpot rather than replace it.
In a spreadsheet, out of band, with no expiry, no revocation and no link to what a salesperson actually says on an objection call. Review is not provenance.
It is less. The claim is written once, evidenced once and approved once — then reused everywhere with its evidence attached. The alternative is re-litigating the same claim in every campaign.
A guidelines tool holds assets and rules. It does not hold claims with evidence, scope and expiry, and nothing downstream enforces what it holds.
Because you can buy one. And because the enforced boundaries are what make the governance credible — a single blob with no ownership lines cannot prove which system approved what.
Ignita has no live message transport: it produces drafts, manual exports and a sandbox channel, and does not send on your behalf. Nothing auto-approves, auto-sends or rewrites your positioning without a person accepting the change. And this does not demo in thirty seconds — provenance is a discipline, not a screenshot. We would rather tell you now than in month three.
Book a demo
Thirty minutes with the people who built it. We take one real claim from your last campaign and walk it through the registry, into copy, into an objection response, and back out as evidence. If provenance is not your problem, we will tell you that too.
Worth saying up front. Value comes after work: you have to write your claims down and evidence them before any of this pays off. We would rather you heard that from us.