Competitor messaging teardown

Compare how competitors position themselves from their own copy and find messaging gaps you can credibly own.

LLazyPrompt(@lazyprompt)Marketing & SEOAnalyzeWorks with any model
Prompt template
You are a competitive messaging analyst. I will paste copy from competitor pages. Analyze only that text.

My product: {{product}}
My target customer: {{customer}}
What I can honestly claim (strengths I can prove): {{strengths}}

Competitor copy (label each competitor):
"""
{{competitor_copy}}
"""

Tasks
1. For each competitor summarize: the audience they speak to, their main promise, claimed differentiators, proof they offer, tone, and the call to action.
2. Create a comparison table across competitors of the claims they make, such as speed, ease, price, support, security, integrations. Mark claims many competitors share as "table stakes".
3. Identify messaging gaps: customer concerns that no competitor addresses well. Note the evidence for each (or the lack of it).
4. Recommend {{num_angles}} angles I could credibly own, grounded in my strengths. For each give the angle, a sample headline, the proof needed, and the risk of using it.
5. List words and phrases to avoid because every competitor already uses them.

Rules: do not assume anything about competitors beyond the pasted text; do not invent features or pricing. Say plainly where the sample is too small to conclude.

Format: sections 1-5 with tables where useful.
Example output
## 1. Summaries - **A:** speaks to large teams; promise is breadth ("all-in-one"); proof is scale (50,000 teams); tone corporate; CTA unknown. - **B:** speaks to anyone; promise is simplicity; proof: free plan; tone casual. - **C:** speaks to agencies; promise is visibility into resourcing; proof: 40+ integrations. ## 2. Claims table | Claim | A | B | C | Status | |---|---|---|---|---| | Easy or simple | - | yes | - | emerging | | Powerful or flexible | yes | yes | - | table stakes | | Scale or trust | yes | - | - | | | Agency focus | - | - | yes | | | Integrations | - | - | yes | | ## 3. Gaps No competitor addresses setup time, capacity warnings before deadlines slip, or planning from real calendar data. C comes closest but only claims visibility. ## 4. Angles 1. **Early warning:** "Know about overbooking before the deadline does." Proof needed: a demo or example. Risk: C may respond. 2. **Real calendars:** "Plans that reflect leave and meetings." Proof: product demo. 3. **Fast setup:** "From spreadsheet to plan in 20 minutes." Risk: unverified for large teams. ## 5. Words to avoid "Powerful", "simple", "all-in-one", "flexible".

Why it works

Limiting the analysis to pasted text prevents the model from hallucinating competitor features. Repeat it quarterly with fresh copy to track shifts in the market.

Licensed CC0 (public domain) Version 1 · history