positioning-strategy

Positioning Strategy

Define what your product is, who it's for, what it's better at, and against what alternatives — evidence-backed and clear enough that a buyer understands the wedge in 10 seconds.

Framework(s) used: April Dunford 5-component positioning, Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD), Category Design — Dunford is the default; if user has a category-creation play or strong JTBD signal, trigger Clarification Protocol so they pick. If multiple frameworks apply, trigger Clarification Protocol so the user picks.

Clarification Protocol

When you encounter any of the following, STOP and ask the user — do NOT make a silent assumption, and do NOT flatly refuse:

• Ambiguous or missing input
• A fork in approach (multiple valid frameworks, segments, scopes, or sources)
• A rule that would block progress
• An assumption that materially shapes the output
• Unverified data that a downstream step depends on

Present 2–4 concrete options with trade-offs and your recommendation.

Format:

Decision needed: <what's being decided> Options:

• A) <option> — trade-off
• B) <option> — trade-off
• C) <option> — trade-off My recommendation: <X> because <reason>. Confirm or pick a different option before I continue.

Refusing to proceed is NEVER the final answer. Every "block" must come with an override option. If the user picks an override, honor it on the first request — do not re-prompt the same block multiple times in one run.

Scope

This skill ONLY produces positioning strategy (positioning statement, differentiators, value themes, alternative-frame analysis). Do not expand into adjacent topics. If the user's request implies adjacent scope, trigger Clarification Protocol with options to (A) stay in scope, (B) note the adjacent need as a follow-up, (C) hand off to a different skill.

Verification Requirements

Before producing the final output, every factual claim about external entities (markets, competitors, people, companies, technologies, pricing, benchmarks) MUST be verified via web search.

• Use a quick lookup for single-fact checks (one company, one stat).
• Use a deep search for landscape/trend questions (multi-source synthesis).
• Tag every verified claim inline as [H/M/L][Sn].
• End the report with a ## Sources section.
• Unverified claims belong in ## Assumptions to Validate, NOT in the main analysis.

Sources are mandatory. If you cannot cite a source for a factual claim, do not state it as fact — move it to Assumptions to Validate or trigger Clarification Protocol.

When to Use

• Positioning definition for a new product or new launch
• Repositioning ("Our positioning isn't working — fix it")
• Message hierarchy or value-prop articulation
• Competitive wedge sharpening ("How do we position against [competitor]?")
• Sales messaging audit / consolidation
• Pre-launch positioning grounding after market-research + competitor-analysis + ICP

Quick Reference

Concept	Detail
Dunford 5 components	Alternatives / Unique attributes / Value + proof / Best-fit ICP / Market category
Category frame types	Existing / Subcategory (default) / New (high-risk) / Cross-category (avoid)
Wedge format	"For [ICP] who are doing [JTBD], [product] is [category] that [unique value], unlike [alternative] which [trade-off]"
Wedge diagnostic	Specific / Defensible / Sharp — all three must pass
Alternatives floor	≥4 entries including status quo / DIY
Message house	1 primary + 3 pillars + ≥2 proofs/pillar
Roles for value variation	Buyer / Champion / User (Blocker gets info, not positioning)

Procedure

1. Identify alternatives (Dunford component 1). Direct + indirect + DIY/status quo. ≥4 entries. If icp-definition produced a Workaround Analysis, use it directly — each workaround becomes an alternative. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/alternatives-analysis.md.
2. List unique attributes (Dunford component 2). Features only you have, or meaningfully more of. Each: specific / verifiable / differentiating.
3. Map attributes to value (Dunford component 3). Drill: feature → benefit → outcome → proof. If "why buyer cares" still sounds like a feature, drill again.
4. Choose best-fit ICP (Dunford component 4). Often narrower than operational ICP. The segment that values unique attributes most.
5. Choose market category (Dunford component 5). Default to subcategory. Test: 5-second test, search test, G2/analyst recognition. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/category-frames.md.
6. Construct the wedge. Use JTBD wedge format. Apply 3 diagnostic tests (specific / defensible / sharp). Iterate until all pass. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/wedge-construction.md.
7. Build message house. Primary (1 sentence) + 3 pillars + ≥2 proofs each. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/message-house.md.
8. Generate value-by-role variations. Buyer / Champion / User — distinct framing, not minor word swaps.
9. For-and-against wedges (top 3 competitors). Per competitor: WHEN / WE WIN / THEY ATTACK / WE COUNTER / FLIP QUESTION. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/for-and-against.md.
10. Buyer-language audit. Every load-bearing word verified in ≥3 buyer-source quotes, or flagged for testing.

Pitfalls

• Skipping alternatives analysis — most common failure mode; without alternatives, positioning floats
• Tagline ≠ positioning — tagline is derivative; positioning is the underlying logic
• Positioning by committee — 6 editors = mush; single owner
• Listing features as value — drill: "and so what?" twice
• Same headline for buyer + user + champion — wrong for at least 2 of them
• "For everyone" positioning — = for no one; force trade-offs
• Over-claiming category creation — needs 10–18 months + budget; default to subcategory

Verification

1. Wedge passes all 3 diagnostic tests (specific / defensible / sharp)
2. Every load-bearing word verified in buyer-source quote or flagged
3. Alternatives include status quo / DIY
4. Message house: 1 primary + 3 pillars + ≥2 proofs/pillar
5. A new SDR could write outbound copy using only this document

Legend — Confidence Score

• [H] High — verified by ≥2 independent primary sources within 6 months
• [M] Medium — single primary source, or multiple secondary sources in agreement
• [L] Low — inferred, single secondary source, or source older than 12 months

Output Format

• Sections required: Positioning Statement, Differentiators (verified), Competitive Alternatives, Value Themes, Sources
• Tables / fields:
  • Differentiator table = Differentiator | Evidence [Sn] | Why it matters | Confidence [H/M/L]
  • Alternatives table = Alternative | What user does today | Why insufficient | Source [Sn]
• Length target: 500–900 words
• File type: markdown
• Mandatory closing sections: Verification Notes, Sources, Assumptions to Validate, Next Step