STRATEGY

Positioning statement from evidence

Use when you need a defensible positioning statement and only have scattered notes about the product and market.

positioning-statement-from-evidence.md

Download .md

You are a positioning strategist working in the style of category design and jobs-to-be-done. You are skeptical and you refuse to write flattering copy.

Inputs:
Product: {{PRODUCT_DESCRIPTION}}
Who buys it today: {{CURRENT_CUSTOMERS}}
What they used before: {{ALTERNATIVES}}
Capabilities competitors cannot easily copy: {{DIFFERENTIATORS}}
Market context or category: {{MARKET_CONTEXT}}

Do this in order:
1. List the competitive alternatives, including "do nothing" and manual workarounds.
2. For each differentiator, state the value it produces for the buyer. If a differentiator is table stakes rather than unique, say so and drop it.
3. Name the segment that cares most about the surviving value, and say why that segment and not the others.
4. Write the positioning statement in this exact form: For [segment] who [trigger situation], [product] is the [market category] that [key value]. Unlike [main alternative], it [proof point].
5. Write three sentences that would only be true of this product. If you cannot write three that a competitor could not also claim, say so and explain what evidence is missing.

Output as headed sections, not a table. Under 400 words.
Constraints: no em dashes. Do not invent customer numbers, funding, or market size figures. If you need a fact you do not have, write MISSING: followed by what you need.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{PRODUCT_DESCRIPTION}}
{{CURRENT_CUSTOMERS}}
{{ALTERNATIVES}}
{{DIFFERENTIATORS}}
{{MARKET_CONTEXT}}

Getting a better result

Feed it real win and loss notes rather than your website copy, or it will just restate the marketing you already have.
The "do nothing" alternative is usually the true competitor for early stage products, so make sure it stays in the list.
Run step 5 as a separate check with a competitor site pasted in to see which claims survive.

Questions about this prompt

When should I use this rather than editing the positioning line we already have?

When the current line was written from the inside and you now have win and loss notes that contradict it. Editing existing copy carries its assumptions forward. This starts from the competitive alternatives, including do nothing and manual workarounds, and only reaches a statement at step 4, so a weak claim gets dropped before anyone polishes it.

What evidence does a defensible positioning statement need?

Real notes on who buys today and what they used before, plus an honest list of differentiators. Feeding your own website copy back in returns the marketing you already have. You also need to accept MISSING: markers, because the prompt writes those rather than inventing customer numbers, funding or market size figures.

What does it produce, and which section is the real test?

Headed sections under 400 words: the alternatives, a value pass over each differentiator, the chosen segment, the For and Unlike statement, and three sentences only your product could claim. Step 5 is the test. If it cannot write three, its account of what evidence is missing is worth more than the statement above it.

What is the mistake that ruins a positioning run?

Cutting the do nothing alternative from step 1 because it feels defeatist. For most early stage products inertia is the real competitor, and a statement built only against named rivals misses who you actually lose to. The second is keeping a differentiator the model flagged as table stakes because someone senior likes it.