When to use
Use this when you need to understand how rivals position and message their product so you can sharpen your differentiation and find content territory they leave open.
Not for: feature-by-feature product teardowns (that is product research, not messaging), pricing strategy in isolation, or drafting the content that fills a gap (use mkt-draft-content).
Method
- Set scope. Confirm your product, 3-5 competitors, and the market category. Decision point: if competitors are unnamed, propose a set and label it an assumption.
- Gather signals per competitor: headline value prop, tagline, target audience, pricing posture, tone, top three messages, proof points, and primary CTA. Cite sources; mark anything inferred.
- Map positioning. Place each competitor on 2-3 axes that matter here (price vs. power, simple vs. enterprise). Locate yourself on the same map.
- Compare messaging. Build a side-by-side and note where claims converge (crowded, commoditized) vs. diverge (ownable).
- Find gaps. Identify unaddressed pains, underserved segments, missing content topics, and weak proof you can attack.
- Recommend. Translate gaps into 3-5 concrete moves (positioning tweak, content piece, message test), each with rationale and expected impact. Decision point: rank by ownability × reach, not by how easy the move is.
Example
Category: project management. Three rivals all lead with "powerful and flexible" — crowded axis. None speaks to solo consultants drowning in client handoffs. White space: "handoff-ready by default." Move: publish a "client handoff" template library and reposition the homepage hero around it — high ownability, directly attacks a pain no rival names.
Pitfalls
- Cataloguing features instead of decoding messages and positioning.
- Mistaking a loud competitor for the whole market; check the quiet, focused ones too.
- Finding gaps but stopping short of concrete, prioritized moves.
- Presenting inferences as facts — mark what is cited vs. assumed.
Output format
Category + competitor set: <...>
Positioning map: <axes + where each player sits (ASCII or text)>
Comparison:
| Competitor | Value prop | Key messages | Tone | CTA | Weakness |
Crowded vs. ownable: <where messaging converges / white space>
Content gaps: <topics/angles no one owns>
Recommendations: <prioritized moves, each with rationale + expected impact>
1---2name: mkt-competitive-brief3description: Compare competitor positioning and messaging against yours, then surface ownable white space and actionable differentiation moves.4---56## When to use78Use this when you need to understand how rivals position and message their product so you can sharpen your differentiation and find content territory they leave open.910**Not for:** feature-by-feature product teardowns (that is product research, not messaging), pricing strategy in isolation, or drafting the content that fills a gap (use mkt-draft-content).1112## Method13141. Set scope. Confirm your product, 3-5 competitors, and the market category. Decision point: if competitors are unnamed, propose a set and label it an assumption.152. Gather signals per competitor: headline value prop, tagline, target audience, pricing posture, tone, top three messages, proof points, and primary CTA. Cite sources; mark anything inferred.163. Map positioning. Place each competitor on 2-3 axes that matter here (price vs. power, simple vs. enterprise). Locate yourself on the same map.174. Compare messaging. Build a side-by-side and note where claims converge (crowded, commoditized) vs. diverge (ownable).185. Find gaps. Identify unaddressed pains, underserved segments, missing content topics, and weak proof you can attack.196. Recommend. Translate gaps into 3-5 concrete moves (positioning tweak, content piece, message test), each with rationale and expected impact. Decision point: rank by ownability × reach, not by how easy the move is.2021## Example2223Category: project management. Three rivals all lead with "powerful and flexible" — crowded axis. None speaks to solo consultants drowning in client handoffs. White space: "handoff-ready by default." Move: publish a "client handoff" template library and reposition the homepage hero around it — high ownability, directly attacks a pain no rival names.2425## Pitfalls2627- Cataloguing features instead of decoding messages and positioning.28- Mistaking a loud competitor for the whole market; check the quiet, focused ones too.29- Finding gaps but stopping short of concrete, prioritized moves.30- Presenting inferences as facts — mark what is cited vs. assumed.3132## Output format3334```35Category + competitor set: <...>36Positioning map: <axes + where each player sits (ASCII or text)>3738Comparison:39| Competitor | Value prop | Key messages | Tone | CTA | Weakness |4041Crowded vs. ownable: <where messaging converges / white space>42Content gaps: <topics/angles no one owns>43Recommendations: <prioritized moves, each with rationale + expected impact>44```
Matrixx0070