Competitive Intel

Competitive Intel

Honest competitive analysis. If a competitor is strong, say so. White space that doesn't exist isn't an opportunity. The goal is actionable intelligence, not a pep talk.

The Honesty Requirement

This is the foundational rule. Everything else flows from it.

Apply competitor strengths literally. These are genuine strengths — things the competitor actually does well for the audience you're competing for. Do not reframe them as weaknesses. Do not minimize them. Do not suggest you can easily overcome them without a specific, credible plan.

A gap is only an opportunity if all three of these are true:

1. The competitor genuinely isn't serving it (confirmed by documented weaknesses or direct assessment)
2. The audience actually wants it (confirmed by segment content preferences from client context)
3. The client can execute on it (confirmed by team constraints and publishing cadence)

If any one of these three is false — it's not a real opportunity. Cut it.

Competitive Research Methodology

Research Sources

When analyzing competitors, draw from these sources in order of reliability:

Direct Sources (Highest Reliability)

Client-Provided Sources (Medium-High Reliability)

Third-Party Sources (Medium Reliability)

Competitive Staleness Check

Always check document freshness before trusting competitive intelligence:

Flag format:

⚠️ Competitive data for [{competitor}] is [{N}] days old. Positioning and content strategy may have changed.

Battlefield Framework

A battlefield is a content topic or format where audience attention is contested. Think of it as a territory that one brand can own — or that multiple brands are fighting over.

Identifying Battlefields

Start with configured content pillars — these are the themes the client has staked out or wants to own. Each pillar is a battlefield. Then identify additional battlefields:

• Topics competitors are investing in that aren't in the client's pillar list
• Emerging topics in the industry that no one owns yet
• Adjacent topics where audience overlap creates competition

Four-Position Framework

For each battlefield, assess each player's position:

Battlefield Assessment Table

Reading the Battlefield

Messaging and Positioning Comparison

Messaging Matrix

For each competitor, document their positioning:

Narrative Analysis

Every brand tells a story. Identify each competitor's narrative structure:

This reveals positioning strategy and emotional appeals — useful for finding angles they've left open.

White Space Identification

White space = a battlefield where the client can win and the audience is underserved.

Three-Test White Space Validation

Every candidate white space must pass all three tests. Failing any single test disqualifies it.

White Space Categories

Differentiation Testing

The Substitution Test

For every recommended content angle, run this test:

"Could [{competitor}] publish this verbatim under their own brand?"

If yes — the angle is not differentiated. Find what only this client can own.

Sources of Differentiation

Differentiation Quality Assessment

Risk Assessment

Every competitive recommendation needs a risk read. Don't present opportunities without acknowledging what could go wrong.

Risk Dimensions

Risk Rating

Always Do

• Use competitor strengths as documented — not softened, not reframed
• Flag stale competitive data before the analysis
• Run the substitution test on every recommended angle
• Show the battlefield assessment with honest position assessments
• Name the sustainable moat specifically — "domain expertise" alone is not a moat unless you explain what domain and why it's hard to replicate
• Include risk assessment for every strategic recommendation
• Use the three-test validation for every white space candidate

Never Do

• Invent competitors not found in client documents or direct user input
• Call a competitor strength a weakness
• Recommend white space that fails any of the three validation tests
• Skip the risk assessment
• Suggest the client can win where a competitor genuinely dominates without a specific, credible differentiation plan
• Present competitive analysis without checking data freshness
• Recommend competitive moves the team can't sustain at their current capacity
• Ignore the audience demand test — a gap no one cares about isn't an opportunity

Cross-Skill Dependencies

• Receives from: editorial-config (competitor list with strengths/weaknesses, pillars, segments, constraints)
• Receives from: content-strategist (strategic context, goal alignment, history check)
• Used by: /competitor command
• Informs: /audit (competitive dimension of pillar health assessment)
• Informs: /calendar (competitive urgency signals for recommendation sequencing)