Positioning Development
Strategic positioning to establish differentiated market position and competitive framing.
Purpose
Positioning defines HOW you want the market to perceive your product:
- •What category you compete in
- •How you're different from alternatives
- •Why customers should choose you
- •What makes you credible
HARD GATE: Market analysis MUST be completed before positioning development.
Process
Phase 1: Category Strategy
Define your competitive frame:
markdown
## Category Strategy ### Current Category Landscape **Existing Categories:** | Category | Leaders | Positioning | |----------|---------|-------------| | [Category 1] | [Top 3 players] | [How they position] | | [Category 2] | [Top 3 players] | [How they position] | ### Category Decision **Option A: Compete in Existing Category** - Category: [Name] - Rationale: [Why this category] - Risk: Established competition - Benefit: Market education not required **Option B: Create New Category** - Category Name: [Proposed name] - Definition: [What this category is] - Rationale: [Why create vs compete] - Risk: Market education required - Benefit: No direct comparison **RECOMMENDATION:** [Option A or B with reasoning]
Phase 2: Competitive Alternatives
Map what customers would do without you:
markdown
## Competitive Alternatives ### Direct Competitors | Competitor | Positioning | Strengths | Weaknesses | |------------|-------------|-----------|------------| | [Competitor 1] | [Their claim] | [Top 3] | [Top 3] | | [Competitor 2] | ... | ... | ... | ### Indirect Alternatives | Alternative | When Chosen | Why Chosen | |-------------|-------------|------------| | DIY/Build | [Scenario] | [Reason] | | Status Quo | [Scenario] | [Reason] | | [Other solution] | [Scenario] | [Reason] | ### Competitive Battleground **Where we win:** - [Scenario 1]: [Why we win here] - [Scenario 2]: [Why we win here] **Where we lose:** - [Scenario 1]: [Why we lose here] - [Scenario 2]: [Why we lose here] **Toss-ups:** - [Scenario 1]: [What determines winner]
Phase 3: Differentiation
Identify defensible differentiators:
markdown
## Differentiation Analysis ### Potential Differentiators | Differentiator | Unique? | Valuable? | Defensible? | Score | |----------------|---------|-----------|-------------|-------| | [Feature/Capability 1] | YES/NO | HIGH/MED/LOW | YES/NO | X/10 | | [Feature/Capability 2] | ... | ... | ... | ... | | [Approach 1] | ... | ... | ... | ... | | [Team/Background] | ... | ... | ... | ... | ### Differentiation Hierarchy **Must-Have Differentiators (to compete):** - [Differentiator 1]: Why it's table stakes **Nice-to-Have Differentiators (to win):** - [Differentiator 2]: Why it creates preference **Unique Differentiators (to dominate):** - [Differentiator 3]: Why it's defensible ### Primary Differentiation Theme **Selected Theme:** [One overarching theme] **Rationale:** [Why this theme] **Supporting Evidence:** 1. [Proof point 1] 2. [Proof point 2] 3. [Proof point 3]
Phase 4: Positioning Statement
Create the positioning framework:
markdown
## Positioning Statement ### Classic Positioning Template FOR [target customer] WHO [statement of need or opportunity] [Product name] IS A [product category] THAT [key benefit] UNLIKE [competitive alternative] [Product name] [primary differentiation] ### Completed Statement FOR [specific ICP from market analysis] WHO [specific pain point] [Product name] IS A [category decision] THAT [primary benefit] UNLIKE [main competitor/alternative] [Product name] [unique differentiator] ### Positioning Pillars | Pillar | Claim | Evidence | |--------|-------|----------| | [Pillar 1] | [What we claim] | [How we prove it] | | [Pillar 2] | [What we claim] | [How we prove it] | | [Pillar 3] | [What we claim] | [How we prove it] |
Phase 5: Positioning Validation
Test positioning viability:
markdown
## Positioning Validation ### Internal Validation | Criterion | Status | Notes | |-----------|--------|-------| | Authentic (we can deliver) | PASS/FAIL | [Evidence] | | Unique (competitors can't claim) | PASS/FAIL | [Evidence] | | Valuable (customers care) | PASS/FAIL | [Evidence] | | Defensible (sustainable advantage) | PASS/FAIL | [Evidence] | ### Market Validation Recommendations - [ ] Customer interviews (N=X) - [ ] Win/loss analysis - [ ] Competitive testing - [ ] Message testing ### Risks and Mitigations | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | |------|------------|--------|------------| | [Risk 1] | HIGH/MED/LOW | HIGH/MED/LOW | [How to address] | | [Risk 2] | ... | ... | ... |
Output Format
markdown
# Positioning: [Product/Feature] ## Executive Summary - **Category:** [Category decision] - **Primary Differentiation:** [One sentence] - **Target Segment:** [From market analysis] - **Positioning Confidence:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW ## Category Strategy [Phase 1 output] ## Competitive Analysis [Phase 2 output] ## Differentiation [Phase 3 output] ## Positioning Statement [Phase 4 output] ## Validation [Phase 5 output] ## Next Steps 1. **Messaging Development:** Use messaging-creation 2. **Validation Activities:** [Recommended validation] 3. **Stakeholder Alignment:** [Who needs to approve] ## Dependencies - Market Analysis: [Link to market-analysis.md] - Competitive Intel: [Link to competitive-intel.md if available]
Blocker Criteria
| Blocker | Action |
|---|---|
| No market analysis | STOP. Complete market-analysis first. |
| Conflicting stakeholder visions | STOP. Facilitate alignment before proceeding. |
| No clear differentiator | STOP. Cannot position without differentiation. |
| Differentiation not defensible | STOP. Identify alternative differentiators. |
Anti-Rationalization Table
See shared-patterns/anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations.
Gate-Specific Anti-Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Why It's WRONG | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Our differentiation is obvious" | Obvious to you ≠ obvious to market | Document and validate |
| "We're better at everything" | No product wins everywhere. Find specific battlegrounds. | Identify specific win scenarios |
| "Category doesn't matter" | Category determines competitive set and expectations | Make explicit category decision |
| "Positioning is just words" | Positioning guides all GTM decisions | Treat as strategic foundation |
Pressure Resistance
See shared-patterns/pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios.
Gate-Specific Pressures
| Pressure Type | Request | Agent Response |
|---|---|---|
| "Position against all competitors" | "We beat everyone at everything" | "Claiming everything dilutes positioning. Focusing on defensible differentiation." |
| "Use competitor's positioning" | "Just say we're like X but better" | "Derivative positioning cedes thought leadership. Creating unique position." |
| "Skip validation" | "We know this resonates" | "Unvalidated positioning risks GTM failure. Recommending validation approach." |
Execution Report
Base metrics per shared-patterns/execution-report.md:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Duration | Xm Ys |
| Iterations | N |
| Result | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL |
Gate-Specific Details
- •alternatives_analyzed: N
- •differentiators_identified: N
- •positioning_statements: N
- •validation_criteria_passed: X/Y
- •confidence_level: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW