Competitor messaging teardown

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

Change note: Initial version

Prompt

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.

Variables

• {{product}}Your producttext

  Default: Plotline, project planning for design studios

• {{customer}}Target customertext

  Default: Small design agencies with 5-30 people

• {{strengths}}Provable strengthslong

  Default: Builds schedule from the real team calendar; flags overbooking automatically; 20-minute setup; spreadsheet import

• {{competitor_copy}}Competitor copylong

  Default: Competitor A: 'The all-in-one work management platform. Plan, track and deliver projects at scale.' Trusted by 50,000 teams. Competitor B: 'Project management that just works. Simple. Powerful. Flexible.' Free plan available. Competitor C: 'Resource planning for agencies. Know who is working on what.' Integrations with 40+ tools.

  Paste headlines and key sections, labeled by competitor.

• {{num_angles}}Number of anglesnumber

  Default: 3

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".

Notes

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.