euroconic Deep Market Research
Purpose
Most "market research" prompts return a Wikipedia summary plus three obvious competitors. This skill forces a multi-phase scan that ends in an explicit gap analysis, not a list.
The goal: produce a research report a PM can hand to leadership without rewriting, and a gap section that surfaces a real strategic move, not just observations.
When to use
- Entering a new market or category and need a fast structural read
- Evaluating a strategic bet, acquisition, or expansion
- Hunting white space for a new product or feature line
- Pre-PRD: validating that the problem is worth solving at the market level
When NOT to use
- You already know the market well and need a deep technical comparison (use a focused competitor teardown instead)
- The question is about a specific account, not a market (use account research)
- You need real-time pricing or current quarterly data without web access enabled
Inputs
Required:
- Market, category, or product space (e.g. "AI coding assistants for enterprise dev teams")
Optional but improves output:
- Target ICP (industry, company size, role)
- Specific strategic question driving the research
- Constraints (geography, regulation, tech)
- Time horizon (today vs 2-3 year view)
If the user gives only a one-liner, ask for the strategic question driving the research before starting. The shape of the answer depends on it.
Process
Phase 1: Frame the market
- One-paragraph market definition with explicit scope boundaries
- Rough sizing: TAM / SAM / SOM with stated assumptions (call out where numbers are estimates vs sourced)
- Segment map: 3-5 distinct buyer or use-case segments
- Value chain: who creates value, who captures it, where margin pools sit
Phase 2: Competitor mapping
- 10-15 named players grouped by positioning archetype (e.g. "incumbents", "AI-native challengers", "vertical specialists", "open-source")
- For each: one-line positioning, target segment, pricing model, signal of momentum
- Explicitly note where information is uncertain or older than 6 months
Phase 3: Customer evidence
- Common complaints and praise patterns from public sources (G2, Reddit, communities, review sites)
- 3-5 representative direct quotes if available, paraphrased if not
- Recurring jobs-to-be-done customers describe
- What customers report as "missing" or "I wish X existed"
Phase 4: Gap synthesis
The most important phase. Surface:
- Jobs poorly served: where every option fails the customer
- Segment gaps: who is underserved or ignored
- Positioning gaps: archetypes no one is claiming
- Wedge opportunities: narrow entry points with expansion paths
Each gap must include: who, what problem, why incumbents don't solve it, and the risk that they will once it's proven.
Phase 5: Strategic options
- 3 distinct strategic moves a new entrant or existing player could make
- For each: theory of why it wins, what it requires, what kills it
- Explicit tradeoffs - never recommend without naming the cost
Output
A markdown report with these sections:
# [Market] - Deep Research Report
## Market frame
## Sizing (with assumptions)
## Segments
## Competitive landscape
## Customer evidence
## Gap analysis
## Strategic options
## Confidence and gaps in research
The final "Confidence" section is mandatory. Flag everything that's an inference, every estimate, every claim where the underlying source is weak. PMs need to know what's load-bearing.
Common failure modes to avoid
- Listing instead of synthesizing: a list of 15 competitors with descriptions is data, not analysis. Always end with implications.
- Anchoring on famous players: include 3-5 lesser-known specialists, not just the top-of-mind names
- Sizing without assumptions: never produce a TAM number without saying how you got there
- Generic gaps: "better UX" is not a gap. "Enterprise legal teams need on-prem deployment which no major player offers" is a gap.
- Recommendations without tradeoffs: every strategic option has a cost. Name it.
Tools strategy
When web search is available, you MUST use it for Phase 2 (competitor mapping) and Phase 3 (customer evidence). Skipping web search when available is the most common failure mode of this skill and produces stale outputs that won't survive scrutiny at an offsite. The skill is fundamentally about current market state, not historical knowledge.
If web search is genuinely unavailable, lean on training data but flag the confidence level explicitly. Do not pretend to have current data you don't have.