v2.4 to v1.0

- version: "2.4"

- last_updated: 2026-03-03

- description: |

- Use when client needs positioning strategy, category definition, or differentiation.

- Use when icp-behavioural and competitor-research completed and ready for strategy.

- Use when user mentions "positioning", "category", or "differentiation".

- Use when homepage messaging needs strategic foundation.

-

- # Agentic Layer Fields

- dependencies:

- - competitor-research

- - win-loss-analysis

-

- - type: positioning-strategy

-

- auto_suggest_when:

- - "icp-research AND competitor-research completed"

- - "user mentions positioning, differentiation, category"

- auto_run_when: null # Always require confirmation

-

- review_gate: 2 # Standard review (strategy output)

-

- output_path: "marketing/product-marketing/"

- ---

-

- # B2B positioning strategy

-

- Develop clear, defensible positioning for B2B SaaS products. This skill helps founders and marketers answer the fundamental question: "Why should prospects choose you over the alternatives?"

-

- ---

-

- ## Process Flowchart

-

- ```text

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ POSITIONING PROCESS │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ PHASE 1: INPUT VALIDATION │

- │ □ Required: Website URL, Company/Product name │

- │ □ Optional: icp-research, competitor-research, win-loss │

- │ → If missing: Ask for URL, offer to run research skills first │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ PHASE 2: DISCOVERY & CURRENT STATE │

- │ Step 1.1: Fetch website content → Output: Raw content │

- │ Step 1.2: Apply 5-second clarity test → Output: Pass/Fail │

- │ Step 1.3: Identify founder type → Output: Classification │

- │ Step 1.4: Extract current positioning → Output: Summary │

- │ ✓ Checkpoint: Website fetched, test complete, type identified │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ PHASE 3: ANCHOR & ALTERNATIVE MAPPING │

- │ Step 2.1: Map positioning anchors → Output: Anchor matrix │

- │ Step 2.2: Map competitive alternatives → Output: Alt matrix │

- │ Step 2.3: Run anchor decision tree → Output: Anchor hypothesis│

- │ Step 2.4: Score anchor combinations → Output: Ranked options │

- │ Step 2.5: Assess market maturity → Output: Emerging/Mature │

- │ ✓ Checkpoint: 6 anchor types mapped, hypothesis recorded │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ PHASE 4: STRATEGY SELECTION + VALIDATION │

- │ Step 3.1: Select binary strategy → Output: Category/Problem │

- │ Step 3.2: Select anchors + angle → Output: Anchors + archetype│

- │ Step 3.3: Define differentiators → Output: 2-3 differentiators│

- │ Step 3.4: Determine market focus → Output: Broad/Niche + TAM │

- │ Step 3.5: Select competitive alternative → Output: Primary alt│

- │ Step 3.6: Run clarity ladder → Output: 4-level compression │

- │ Step 3.7: Run guarantee test → Output: Pass/Fail per claim │

- │ Step 3.8: Map strategic implications → Output: Constraints │

- │ ✓ Checkpoint: Strategy decided, validated, implications mapped│

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ SELF-EVALUATION │

- │ □ Completeness: All 3 phases complete? │

- │ □ Evidence: Differentiators defensible? Proof types aligned? │

- │ □ Anchors: Decision tree hypothesis validated? Angle selected?│

- │ □ Guardrails: No "platform" alone? No invented categories? │

- │ → If issues found: Suggest specific improvements │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ REVIEW GATE: Level 2 (Standard Review) │

- │ Present: Full positioning strategy, key decisions │

- │ Actions: [Approve] [Iterate: specific request] │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- │

- ▼

- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

- │ CHAIN SUGGESTIONS │

- │ → If approved: "Want me to run product-messaging next?" │

- │ (Tight coupling — positioning feeds directly into messaging)│

- │ → Save as reference example if positive feedback │

- └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- ```

-

- ---

-

- ## Claude Code Triggers

-

- **Invoke this skill when user says:**

- - "Help me position [product/company]"

- - "What category should we be in?"

- - "How do I differentiate from [competitor]?"

- - "Our homepage isn't converting — help with positioning"

- - "Should we niche down or go broad?"

- - "How do I explain what we do?"

- - "Positioning strategy for [company]"

- - "Our messaging is confusing"

- - "Multi-product positioning help"

-

- **Do NOT invoke when:**

- - User wants landing page copy directly → Use `landing-page-copy` skill

- - User wants full messaging library → Use `product-messaging` skill first

- - User wants competitor research only → Use `competitor-research` skill

- - User wants ICP research only → Use `icp-research` skill

-

- ## Input Requirements

-

- ### Required Inputs

-

- | Input | Description | Source |

- |-------|-------------|--------|

- | **Company/Product** | Name and basic description | User provides |

- | **Website URL** | Primary product website | User provides |

-

- ### Optional Inputs (improve quality)

-

- | Input | How It Helps | Source Skill |

- |-------|--------------|--------------|

- | ICP research | Sharpens persona and problem anchors | `icp-research` output |

- | Competitor research | Enables competitive alternative mapping | `competitor-research` output |

- | Win/loss analysis | Reveals actual decision criteria and objections | `win-loss-analysis` output |

- | Sales feedback | Shows what's working/not in conversations | User provides |

-

- ### Input Validation Checklist

-

- Before proceeding, verify:

-

- - [ ] Website URL is accessible and fetchable

- - [ ] Company/product name confirmed

- - [ ] Founder type identified (customer-focused, technology-focused, or competition-focused)

- **If inputs are missing:** Ask for website URL. Offer to run research skills first to assess current positioning clarity.

- ## Skill Integration Map

-

- ### Positioning as upstream input

- This skill produces outputs that feed into other PMM skills:

- | Output | Feeds Into | How It's Used |

- |--------|------------|---------------|

- | Positioning statement | `product-messaging` | Shapes description and core blocks |

- | Primary/secondary anchors | `landing-page-copy` | Informs hero headline formula |

- | Differentiators | `sales-enablement` | Powers battlecard positioning |

- | Competitive alternatives | `competitor-research` | Focuses competitive analysis |

- | Market focus decision | `icp-research` | Narrows persona research scope |

- ### Positioning as downstream consumer

- This skill can consume outputs from other PMM skills:

- | Input From | How Positioning Uses It |

- |------------|------------------------|

- | `icp-research` | Persona anchors, pain point language |

- | `competitor-research` | Competitive alternative mapping |

- | `win-loss-analysis` | Real objections, decision criteria |

- ### Recommended workflow sequences

- **Sequence 1: Greenfield positioning (no prior research)**

- positioning → product-messaging → landing-page-copy

- **Sequence 2: Research-informed positioning**

- icp-research → competitor-research → positioning → product-messaging

- ---

-

- ## Core Positioning Frameworks

-

- ### Framework 1: Positioning Anchors (The Fletch Method)

-

- **Positioning anchors** are reference points that help an audience mentally classify what a product is using familiar concepts. By grounding the unfamiliar in the familiar, positioning anchors establish the baseline context necessary for a value-based conversation to occur.

-

- #### Type 1: Primary Anchors (Sufficient Definition)

-

- Primary anchors provide a **sufficient definition** of the product **in isolation** that lets someone mentally classify what your product is. When a customer asks "what is your product?", primary anchors provide sufficient context.

-

- | Primary Anchor | Definition | Example | Customer Response |

- |----------------|------------|---------|-------------------|

- | **Activity** | Manual task the product replaces (no category exists yet) | "Loom is a way to record yourself" | "I get it!" |

- | **Product Category** | Known software category | "Attio is a CRM" | "I get it!" |

- | **Use Case** | Specific task + friction removed | "Calendly is for scheduling meetings over email" | "I get it!" |

- | **Competitive Alternative** | Specific tool you replace | "Slack is an email-replacement" | "I get it!" |

-

- **Activity vs Use Case distinction:** Activity positioning names the raw task ("record yourself") without specifying the friction it removes. Use Case positioning names the task AND the problem ("schedule meetings over email" — the problem is the back-and-forth). Activity works when no software category exists yet and buyers don't even have language for the problem. Use Case works when buyers recognize the friction but haven't found a dedicated solution.

-

- **Primary anchors are not optional.** They are the cognitive entry point that enables all downstream messaging about benefits, differentiation, or ROI.

-

- #### Type 2: Secondary Anchors (Descriptive Context)

-

- Secondary anchors provide **descriptive context** that helps clarify or enrich the positioning, but **doesn't classify what the product is** on their own. When used alone, customers still ask "but what is it?"

-

- | Secondary Anchor | Definition | Example (Insufficient) | Customer Response |

- |------------------|------------|------------------------|-------------------|

- | **Company Type** | Business segment | "Slack is for small businesses" | "but what is it?" |

- | **Department** | Team or role | "Attio is for salespeople" | "but what is it?" |

- | **Desired Outcome** | Benefit or result | "Calendly saves you time" | "but what is it?" |

-

- **Critical insight:** Stacking secondary anchors is still inadequate. "Attio helps salespeople in small businesses save time" → Customer: "I still don't get what it is."

-

- #### Combining Primary + Secondary = Maximum Clarity

-

- The most effective positioning combines primary anchors (what it is) with secondary anchors (who it's for, what it does):

-

- **Example: FletchPMM positioning**

- > "FletchPMM is a **PMM Consultancy** [Primary: Product Category] that helps **Marketers** [Secondary: Department] in **B2B Software Companies** [Secondary: Company Type] **position their products** [Primary: Use Case]"

-

- | Anchor Combination | Resulting Message |

- |--------------------|-------------------|

- | Category + Persona | "Positioning consultancy for B2B SaaS" |

- | Use case + Problem | "Homepage messaging for startups with confusing positioning" |

- | Competitive alt + Differentiation | "April Dunford's framework, but with done-for-you execution" |

-

- #### Three Rules for Using Anchors Well

-

- **Rule 1: Choose the right level of clarity (specificity matters)**

-

- | Anchor Type | Vague (Fails) | Specific (Works) |

- |-------------|---------------|------------------|

- | Activity | "Working" → "we help you work" | "Recording yourself" → "we help you record yourself" |

- | Product Category | "Software" → "we are a software company" | "CRM" → "we are a CRM" |

- | Use Case | "Running a business" → "we help you run your business" | "Composing an email" → "we help you compose emails" |

- | Competitive Alternative | "Traditional tools" → "we replace traditional tools" | "Arc Browser" → "we're an Arc Browser-replacement" |

-

- **Rule 2: Choosing an anchor is (indirectly) choosing a market segment**

-

- | Anchor Choice | Market Segment | Tradeoff |

- |---------------|----------------|----------|

- | Competitive Alt: "We are a Clay-alternative" | Appeals to market aware of Clay | Doesn't appeal to market that doesn't know Clay |

- | Use Case: "We are a way to enrich your CRM" | Appeals to market wanting to do a task | Potentially not including Clay |

-

- **Rule 3: Layer anchors strategically to create a more specific ICP**

-

- Each additional anchor narrows your target:

- - "People updating their coworkers" [Use Case] → broadest

- - "...by having meetings" [Competitive Alternative] → narrower

- - "...on a sales team" [Department] → narrower still

- - "...in small businesses" [Company Type] → most specific ICP

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 2: Unique Value (Problem + Differentiation)

-

- **Unique Value = Customer's Problem + Your Differentiated Way of Solving It**

-

- To articulate unique value, you need to **link a key problem to one of your primary anchors**:

-

- | Primary Anchor | Problem Link | Example |

- |----------------|--------------|---------|

- | Activity | Problem with doing it manually | "Recording a Loom is way faster than writing long emails to explain things" |

- | Product Category | Problem with the category | "CDPs are inflexible & lead to vendor lock-in" |

- | Competitive Alternative | Problem with the alternative | "LinkedIn's Inbox is annoying & slow to use" |

- | Use Case | Problem with accomplishing the task | "Getting SOC 2 compliant is incredibly time-consuming" |

-

- **The formula:** [Primary Anchor] + [Problem with that anchor] + [Your differentiated solution]

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 3: The Binary Positioning Choice (Category vs Problem)

-

- Every B2B product must choose one of two fundamental strategies:

-

- **Strategy A: Category positioning**

- - Position within an existing, known category ("shelf")

- - Differentiate within that category

- - Easier to explain, harder to differentiate

- - Best for: Mature markets, known problems

-

- **Strategy B: Problem/use-case positioning**

- - Position around a specific workflow or job-to-be-done

- - Create differentiation through focus

- - Harder to explain, easier to differentiate

- - Best for: Emerging markets, new approaches

-

- **The key insight:** Both strategies can work, but they have different tradeoffs. You must consciously choose one as your primary approach.

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 4: Three Founder Positioning Types

-

- After working with 350+ startups, Fletch identified three founder types — each requiring a different positioning approach:

-

- **1. Customer-focused founders**

- - Dead set on helping a specific group of people (often from their industry)

- - Deep insight into customer struggles

- - **Approach:** Start with target audience → map workflows → identify competitive alternatives → layer on differentiation

-

- **2. Technology-focused founders**

- - Dead set on applying a technology breakthrough (often AI)

- - Endless market applications, no strong ICP conviction

- - **Approach:** Start with unique product capabilities → work backwards to spotlight weak competitive alternatives → map who uses those alternatives

-

- **3. Competition-focused founders**

- - Dead set on disrupting a specific market category

- - Direct experience with incumbent products' problems

- - **Approach:** Start with competitive alternative → document its weaknesses → position directly against it

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 5: The Homepage Clarity Test

-

- Your hero section must answer ONE of these two questions:

-

- 1. **"Which of my tools does this replace?"** → Category-based clarity

- 2. **"Which tasks in my job would this help me with?"** → Problem-based clarity

-

- **The 5-second test:**

-

- - Read only H1 + H2 of any homepage

- - If you can't answer one of these questions, the positioning is unclear

- - "Platform" alone never passes this test

-

- **What passes:**

- - "Salesforce = CRM" (category)

- - "Gong = Call Recording" (category)

- - "Notion = All-in-one workspace for docs, wikis, and projects" (task)

-

- **What fails:**

- - "The platform for modern teams"

- - "Unlock your potential with AI"

- - "Enterprise-grade solutions"

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 6: Competitive Alternatives Matrix

-

- Before positioning, map all alternatives buyers consider:

-

- | Alternative Type | Example | How to Position Against |

- |------------------|---------|------------------------|

- | **Manual/DIY** | Spreadsheets, email | Speed, accuracy, scale |

- | **Legacy incumbent** | Salesforce, SAP | Modern UX, faster implementation |

- | **Direct competitor** | Same-category startup | Feature superiority, focus |

- | **Adjacent tool** | Tool that partially solves | Depth, specialization |

- | **Status quo** | Doing nothing | Cost of inaction |

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 7: Niche Market Positioning

-

- **The $100M niche reality:**

- - $1,000 ACV → 100,000 customers needed

- - $10,000 ACV → 10,000 customers needed

- - $100,000 ACV → 1,000 customers needed

-

- **Five focus strategies for niche positioning:**

- 1. **One persona** — "CRM for recruiters"

- 2. **One ecosystem** — "Analytics for Shopify"

- 3. **One use case** — "Contract review automation"

- 4. **One industry** — "ERP for construction"

- 5. **One attribute** — "The fastest [category]"

-

- **When niching is NOT required:**

- 1. You're in a winner-take-all market with network effects

- 2. You have massive funding to outspend on awareness

- 3. Category is so nascent you need to educate broadly

- 4. You're doing M&A strategy (buying niches vs building)

- 5. Product is truly horizontal (like Slack, Zoom)

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 8: Category Entry Strategies

-

- **For mature categories:**

- 1. Don't pitch as if you're first — acknowledge the category leader

- 2. Differentiation must be INSTANTLY apparent

- 3. Add a modifier to known category (like "smartphone") — don't coin new terms

- 4. Never say "Intelligent [Category] Management" — stay on the known shelf

-

- **For emerging categories:**

- - Link to adjacent known categories

- - Lead with the problem, not the solution

- - Use analogies sparingly and only when helpful

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 9: The Differentiation Test

-

- **Business outcomes alone don't differentiate:**

- > "Every B2B service or product is already assumed to help someone make more money, save money, or save time. Saying those magic words doesn't differentiate you."

-

- **What differentiates:**

- 1. **Unique delivery mechanism** — HOW you deliver results

- 2. **Guarantees** — Willing to put money where mouth is

- 3. **Focus** — Specificity that competitors can't/won't match

- 4. **Proprietary asset** — Data, technology, or methodology

-

- **The guarantee test:**

- > "Are you willing to guarantee the outcome? If not, you want prospects to feel like results are guaranteed without you being willing to guarantee them."

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 10: Emerging Market Positioning

-

- For products creating new categories or in nascent markets:

-

- **The dual strategy requirement:**

-

- New markets require TWO different positioning strategies running in parallel:

-

- 1. **Product positioning** — For people already in the emerging market

- - Explains why you're the best solution in the category

- - Goal: Pull prospects into your pipeline

-

- 2. **Market education** — For people not yet in the market

- - Educates on why this approach matters

- - Goal: Pull prospects into the market itself

-

- **Key insight:** You cannot use ONE message for both audiences. The in-market audience needs differentiation; the out-of-market audience needs education first.

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 11: Multi-Product Homepage Strategies

-

- Three approaches for multi-product companies:

-

- **1. Lead with flagship**

- - Feature one product prominently in hero

- - Secondary products below fold

- - Best when: One product drives majority of revenue

-

- **2. Unified umbrella**

- - Position the suite/platform as the product

- - Individual products as features

- - Best when: Cross-sell is primary motion

-

- **3. Segment by persona**

- - Different entry points for different buyers

- - Navigation-first approach

- - Best when: Products serve distinct ICPs

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 12: Validating New Positioning

-

- For sales-led startups:

-

- 1. **Create positioning hypothesis** — Document current vs. proposed

- 2. **Test in sales conversations** — A/B test messaging in discovery calls

- 3. **Track conversion changes** — Demo-to-close rate

- 4. **Gather objection data** — What new objections emerge?

- 5. **Iterate before website** — Website is expensive to change

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 13: Anchor Selection Decision Tree

-

- A top-down sequential test for rapid anchor orientation before detailed scoring in Phase 2.

-

- **Step 0: Leader Dominance Test**

- → Is there a single dominant leader owning 40%+ of buyer mindshare?

- → Do you have a clear wedge against that leader?

- → IF YES to both → Start with **Competitive Alternative** anchor

-

- **Step 1: Category Awareness Test**

- → When prospects describe what they need, do they use a known category name?

- → Do they Google a specific software category, compare vendors on G2/Capterra?

- → IF YES → Start with **Product Category** anchor

-

- **Step 2: Problem Articulation Test**

- → Can prospects describe the specific friction/pain they experience?

- → Do they have language for the problem, just not for the solution category?

- → IF YES → Start with **Use Case** anchor

-

- **Step 3: Manual Behavior Test**

- → Are prospects solving this with manual work (spreadsheets, email, meetings)?

- → Is there no established software category for this task?

- → IF YES → Start with **Activity** anchor

-

- **Market maturity alignment:**

-

- | Anchor | Market Maturity | Buyer Awareness | Typical Alternative |

- |--------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------------|

- | Activity | Pre-market | Low — no category language | Manual/DIY processes |

- | Use Case | Emerging | Medium — problem language, no category | Broken workflows, workarounds |

- | Product Category | Established | High — category language exists | Direct competitors |

- | Competitive Alternative | Mature | Very high — dominant leader exists | Named market leader |

-

- **Important:** This tree produces a hypothesis, not a final answer. The detailed anchor scoring in Step 2.4 validates or overrides this initial read.

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 14: Secondary Angle Archetypes

-

- After selecting a primary anchor, choose a secondary angle that sharpens differentiation. Select a maximum of 2.

-

- | Angle Archetype | Formula | Example | When It Works |

- |-----------------|---------|---------|---------------|

- | **Niche Down** | "[Primary anchor] built for [specific segment]" | "CRM built for recruiters" | ICP is sharply defined, generalists fail them |

- | **Low-Cost Player** | "[Primary anchor] without [expensive pain]" | "CDP without enterprise pricing" | Incumbents are overpriced for segment |

- | **Premium Player** | "The most advanced [primary anchor]" | "The most advanced sales engagement platform" | Buyers will pay for best-in-class |

- | **Unique Attribute** | "Only [primary anchor] with [exclusive capability]" | "Only CRM with native WhatsApp" | You have a genuinely exclusive feature |

- | **Lite Version** | "A lightweight way to [primary anchor activity]" | "A lightweight way to manage contracts" | Existing tools are bloated for use case |

-

- **Relationship to Framework 9 (Differentiation Test):**

- - Framework 14 selects the ANGLE (what type of positioning play)

- - Framework 9 validates the EVIDENCE (is it defensible?)

-

- ---

-

- ### Framework 15: Proof Type Mapping per Anchor

-

- Each primary anchor type demands a different evidence strategy.

-

- | Primary Anchor | Best Proof Type | What It Demonstrates | Example |

- |----------------|-----------------|---------------------|---------|

- | **Activity** | Before → After transformation | Life before software vs. after | "Teams spent 4hrs/week on manual reports. Now it's automated in 10 minutes." |

- | **Use Case** | Workflow power + Outcome proof | End-to-end capability AND measurable result | "Cut contract review from 2 hours to 10 minutes with 95% accuracy." |

- | **Product Category** | Comparative proof | Head-to-head advantage over category peers | "3x faster implementation than Salesforce, same feature depth." |

- | **Competitive Alternative** | Switch & Upgrade proof | Migration story + what they gained | "Switched from [Leader] in 2 weeks. Gained [capability] they didn't have." |

-

- ---

-

- ## Process (Step-by-Step)

-

- ### Phase 1: Discovery & Current State

-

- **Purpose:** Gather raw material and assess current positioning clarity.

-

- **Steps:**

-

- 1. **Step 1.1: Fetch website content**

- - Homepage: Extract hero (H1 + H2), value props, feature sections

- - Pricing page: Understand tiers and positioning signals

- - About page: Company context, mission, founding story

- - Product/features page: Capability claims

- - **Output:** Raw content from 4+ pages with URLs

-

- 2. **Step 1.2: Apply 5-second clarity test**

- - Read ONLY the hero section (H1 + H2)

- - Does it answer: "Which tools does this replace?" OR "Which tasks does this help with?"

- - Score: Pass/Fail with specific rationale

- - **Output:** Clarity test result

-

- 3. **Step 1.3: Identify founder type**

- - Ask or infer: Customer-focused, Technology-focused, or Competition-focused?

- - This determines the positioning approach sequence

- - **Output:** Founder type classification

-

- 4. **Step 1.4: Extract current positioning elements**

- - What category do they claim? (explicit or implied)

- - What differentiation do they claim?

- - Who do they say they serve?

- - What problem do they claim to solve?

- - **Output:** Current positioning summary

-

- **Phase 1 Checkpoint:**

-

- - [ ] Website content fetched (4+ pages)

- - [ ] 5-second test completed with pass/fail

- - [ ] Founder type identified

- - [ ] Current positioning extracted

-

- ### Phase 2: Anchor & Alternative Mapping

-

- **Purpose:** Map positioning anchors and competitive alternatives.

-

- **Steps:**

-

- 1. **Step 2.1: Map potential positioning anchors**

- - Activity anchors (what manual work do they replace? No category exists yet?)

- - Product category anchors (what shelf could they be on?)

- - Use case/workflow anchors (what tasks do they enable, what friction do they remove?)

- - Problem anchors (what pain do they solve?)

- - Persona anchors (who specifically do they serve?)

- - Competitive alternative anchors (what do they replace?)

- - **Output:** Anchor options matrix (6 types x 2-3 options each)

-

- 2. **Step 2.2: Map competitive alternatives**

- - Manual/DIY: How do prospects solve this without software?

- - Legacy incumbent: Who's the "Salesforce" of this space?

- - Direct competitors: Same-category startups

- - Adjacent tools: Partial solutions from other categories

- - Status quo: What happens if they do nothing?

- - **Output:** Competitive alternatives matrix with positioning angles

-

- 3. **Step 2.3: Run anchor selection decision tree (quick diagnostic)**

- - Run the Esner Decision Tree (Framework 13) sequentially

- - Record the hypothesis anchor type

- - This hypothesis will be validated or overridden by the scoring matrix in Step 2.4

- - **Output:** Initial anchor hypothesis with reasoning

-

- 4. **Step 2.4: Score anchor combinations**

- - For each primary + secondary anchor combination:

- - Clarity score (1-5): How easy to understand?

- - Differentiation score (1-5): How distinct from alternatives?

- - Relevance score (1-5): Does this anchor matter to the buyer's current priorities?

- - **Output:** Ranked anchor combinations

-

- 5. **Step 2.5: Assess market maturity**

- - Emerging market: Needs dual strategy (product + education)

- - Mature market: Needs clear differentiation against known alternatives

- - **Output:** Market maturity classification

-

- **Phase 2 Checkpoint:**

-

- - [ ] 6 anchor types mapped with options

- - [ ] Competitive alternatives documented

- - [ ] Anchor selection hypothesis recorded (decision tree)

- - [ ] Anchor combinations scored

- - [ ] Market maturity assessed

-

- ### Phase 3: Strategy Selection

-

- **Purpose:** Make the key positioning decisions.

-

- **Steps:**

-

- 1. **Step 3.1: Select binary strategy**

- - Category positioning OR Problem/use-case positioning

- - Document rationale based on market maturity and founder type

- - **Output:** Primary strategy with reasoning

-

- 2. **Step 3.2: Select primary anchor, secondary anchor, and secondary angle**

- - Primary anchor: Main reference point from Framework 1 (drives H1)

- - Secondary anchor: Supporting context from Framework 1 (drives H2)

- - Secondary angle archetype: Differentiation type from Framework 14 — max 2

- - Validate decision tree hypothesis against scoring results

- - **Output:** Anchor pair + angle archetype selection with rationale

-

- 3. **Step 3.3: Define differentiators**

- - NOT business outcomes alone (those are table stakes)

- - Focus on: Unique delivery mechanism, guarantees, focus, proprietary assets

- - Test: Would you guarantee this outcome?

- - **Output:** 2-3 defensible differentiators

-

- 4. **Step 3.4: Determine market focus**

- - Broad vs. niche assessment

- - If niche, select focus strategy: persona, ecosystem, use case, industry, or attribute

- - TAM reality check: At target ACV, how many customers needed?

- - **Output:** Market focus decision with TAM math

-

- 5. **Step 3.5: Select primary competitive alternative**

- - Which alternative will you primarily position against?

- - This shapes all messaging angles

- - **Output:** Primary competitive alternative

-

- 6. **Step 3.6: Run clarity ladder**

- - Test whether positioning compresses cleanly at four levels:

- - One word: Does a single word capture the essence?

- - One phrase: Is the phrase differentiated?

- - One sentence: Does it pass the 5-second clarity test?

- - One paragraph: Does the full statement answer all buyer questions?

- - If any level fails, revisit anchor or differentiator selection

- - **Output:** Clarity ladder table (4 rows)

-

- 7. **Step 3.7: Run guarantee test on all differentiators**

- - For each differentiator:

- - Would you guarantee this outcome with money on the line?

- - What evidence supports it?

- - Verdict: Pass / Fail / Partial (with conditions)

- - Cross-reference proof type: Does evidence match the recommended proof type for your primary anchor? (See Framework 15)

- - **Output:** Guarantee test table

-

- 8. **Step 3.8: Map strategic implications**

- - For each strategy decision, document what it implies for:

- - Messaging direction (what to lead with, what to avoid)

- - ICP sharpening (which segments to prioritize based on anchor choices)

- - Competitive counter-positions (per-competitor response)

- - **Output:** Implications table

-

- **Phase 3 Checkpoint:**

-

- - [ ] Binary strategy selected (category vs. problem)

- - [ ] Primary + secondary anchors chosen

- - [ ] Secondary angle archetype selected (Framework 14)

- - [ ] Decision tree hypothesis confirmed or overridden

- - [ ] Differentiators defined (not just outcomes)

- - [ ] Market focus determined with TAM check

- - [ ] Primary competitive alternative selected

- - [ ] Clarity ladder passes at all levels

- - [ ] All differentiators pass guarantee test (or flagged as partial/fail)

- - [ ] Proof types aligned to primary anchor (Framework 15)

- - [ ] Strategic implications mapped for downstream skills

-

- ---

-

- ## Output Format

-

- ### Standard Output Structure

-

- ```markdown

- # Positioning strategy: [Company Name]

-

- **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

- **Website:** [URL]

- **Founder type:** [Customer-focused / Technology-focused / Competition-focused]

-

- ---

-

- ## Phase 1: Current state assessment

-

- ### 5-second clarity test

-

- **Current H1:** "[Verbatim H1]"

- **Current H2:** "[Verbatim H2]"

-

- **Result:** Pass/Fail

- **Rationale:** [Does it answer tool replacement OR task help?]

-

- ### Current positioning extraction

-

- | Element | Current State | Assessment |

- |---------|---------------|------------|

- | Category claimed | [X] | Clear/Unclear/Missing |

- | Differentiation claimed | [X] | Defensible/Generic/Missing |

- | ICP claimed | [X] | Specific/Broad/Missing |

- | Problem claimed | [X] | Acute/Vague/Missing |

-

- ---

-

- ## Phase 2: Anchor & alternative mapping

-

- ### Positioning anchor options

-

- | Anchor Type | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |

- |-------------|----------|----------|----------|

- | Activity | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Product category | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Use case/workflow | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Problem | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Persona | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Competitive alternative | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

-

- ### Anchor selection hypothesis (decision tree)

-

- **Decision tree result:** [Activity / Use Case / Product Category / Competitive Alternative]

- **Reasoning:** [Which test triggered YES and why]

- **Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low]

-

- ### Competitive alternatives matrix

-

- | Type | Alternative | Their Weakness | Your Angle |

- |------|-------------|----------------|------------|

- | Manual/DIY | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Legacy incumbent | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Direct competitor | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Adjacent tool | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

- | Status quo | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

-

- ### Top anchor combinations (scored)

-

- | Primary | Secondary | Clarity | Differentiation | Relevance | Total |

- |---------|-----------|---------|-----------------|-------------|-------|

- | [X] | [Y] | 4/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 | 12/15 |

-

- **Market maturity:** Emerging / Mature

-

- ---

-

- ## Phase 3: Strategy decisions

-

- ### Binary strategy: [Category / Problem-Use Case]

-

- **Rationale:** [Why this strategy given market maturity and founder type]

-

- ### Selected anchors

-

- **Primary anchor:** [X] — [Why this anchor]

- **Secondary anchor:** [Y] — [Why this anchor]

- **Secondary angle:** [Niche / Low-Cost / Premium / Unique Attribute / Lite] — [Why this angle]

- **Decision tree alignment:** [Confirmed / Overridden — explain if scoring diverged from hypothesis]

-

- ### Differentiators (not just outcomes)

-

- 1. **[Differentiator 1]:** [Description]

- - Type: Delivery mechanism / Guarantee / Focus / Proprietary asset

- - Would you guarantee this? Yes/No

-

- 2. **[Differentiator 2]:** [Description]

- - Type: [X]

- - Would you guarantee this? Yes/No

-

- ### Market focus: [Broad / Niche]

-

- **Focus strategy (if niche):** Persona / Ecosystem / Use case / Industry / Attribute

-

- **TAM reality check:**

- - Target ACV: $[X]

- - Customers needed for $[Y]M: [Z]

- - Available market: [Assessment]

-

- ### Primary competitive alternative

-

- **Position against:** [X]

- **Key weakness to exploit:** [Y]

-

- ### Clarity ladder

-

- | Level | Statement | Test |

- |-------|-----------|------|

- | **One word** | [X] | Does it capture the essence? |

- | **One phrase** | [X] | Is it differentiated? |

- | **One sentence** | [X] | Clear in 5 seconds? |

- | **One paragraph** | Full positioning statement | Answers all questions? |

-

- ### Positioning statements (anchor-specific)

-

- **Internal narrative (strategic foundation):**

-

- | Primary Anchor | Statement Template |

- |----------------|-------------------|

- | Activity | "We help [persona] [do activity] — replacing [manual process] with [product mechanism]." |

- | Use Case | "We help [persona] [accomplish use case] without [key friction] — by [differentiated approach]." |

- | Product Category | "We are a [category] that [key differentiator] — unlike [competitive alternative] which [weakness]." |

- | Competitive Alternative | "We're a [leader]-alternative that [key upgrade] — for [persona] who [unmet need]." |

-

- **One-sentence positioning (external use):**

-

- > "[Statement using template above, compressed to one sentence]"

-

- ### Guarantee test

-

- | Differentiator | Evidence | Proof Type Match | Verdict |

- |----------------|----------|------------------|---------|

- | [Differentiator 1] | [Evidence] | [Aligned / Misaligned] | Pass / Fail / Partial |

-

- ### Strategic implications

-

- | Dimension | Implication | How to apply |

- |-----------|-------------|--------------|

- | Messaging | [What to lead with, what to avoid] | [Direction for product-messaging] |

- | ICP | [Which segments to prioritize] | [Direction for icp-research] |

- | Competitive | [Per-competitor counter-positions] | [Direction for sales-enablement] |

-

- ### Channel emphasis guidance

-

- | Channel / Context | Typical Emphasis | Example |

- |-------------------|------------------|---------|

- | Homepage hero | Primary anchor (clearest classification) | Category or Use Case statement |

- | Thought leadership / LinkedIn | Activity or Use Case (problem education) | "Most teams still do X manually..." |

- | Comparison pages / G2 | Competitive Alternative (direct positioning) | "Unlike [Leader], we..." |

- | Sales discovery calls | Use Case or Activity (pain exploration) | "How are you currently handling X?" |

- | Case studies | Proof type matching primary anchor | Before/After, Switch story, etc. |

-

- ---

-

- ## Validation recommendations

-

- | Test | Method | Success Metric |

- |------|--------|----------------|

- | Sales conversation test | A/B test messaging in discovery calls | Demo-to-close rate |

- | Homepage A/B test | Test new hero vs. current | Scroll depth, CTA clicks |

- | Customer recognition | Ask customers "what do we do?" | Consistent answers |

-

- ---

-

- ## Next steps

- - [ ] Test positioning in 5-10 sales conversations before website changes

- - [ ] Run `product-messaging` skill with this positioning as input

- - [ ] Run `landing-page-copy` skill for full page copy

- - [ ] Align team on one-liner (which version for which context)

- ---

- ## Source appendix

- | # | URL | Content Type | Access Date |

- |---|-----|--------------|-------------|

- | 1 | [Homepage URL] | Homepage | [Date] |

- ---

- ## Related context

- **Built from:**

- - `context/MMYY-company-context.md` (company strengths)

- - `context/MMYY-competitor-*.md` (competitive landscape)

- - `context/MMYY-icp-research.md` (audience priorities)

- **Feeds into:**

- - `marketing/product-marketing/MMYY-product-messaging.md` (messaging executes positioning)

- - `marketing/content/MMYY-content-strategy.md` (content pillars align to positioning)

-

- ---

-

- ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid

-

- | Pattern | Why It Fails | Better Approach |

- |---------|--------------|-----------------|

- | "Platform for X" alone | Doesn't explain what it does | Add what the platform enables |

- | "AI-powered" as differentiator | Everyone says this now | Focus on outcome AI enables |

- | "Best in class" | Unsubstantiated claim | Specific, provable differentiator |

- | Listing 10+ use cases | Confuses, doesn't position | Lead with 1-2, expand later |

- | New category coining | Moves you off known shelf | Modifier on known category |

- | Business outcome only | Table stakes, not differentiator | HOW you deliver the outcome |

-

- ---

-

- ## Self-Evaluation Protocol

-

- After generating positioning output, automatically run these checks:

-

- ### Completeness Check

- - [ ] All 3 phases complete (Discovery, Anchors, Strategy)?

- - [ ] Anchor decision tree hypothesis recorded and validated against scoring?

- - [ ] Secondary angle archetype selected (Framework 14)?

- - [ ] Clarity ladder passes at all four levels?

- - [ ] Strategic implications mapped?

-

- ### Evidence Quality Check

- - [ ] Differentiators are defensible (not just outcomes)?

- - [ ] All differentiators have formal guarantee test verdicts?

- - [ ] Proof types aligned to primary anchor (Framework 15)?

- - [ ] Competitive alternatives based on actual market research?

- - [ ] Market focus TAM math is realistic?

-

- ### Guardrail Check

- - [ ] No "platform for X" without explaining what platform enables?

- - [ ] No invented category names?

- - [ ] No "AI-powered" as primary differentiator?

- - [ ] No business outcomes alone as differentiation?

- - [ ] No more than 3 differentiators (focus)?

-

- ### Self-Roast Questions

-

- 1. "If Anthony Pierri reviewed this, what would he flag as lazy positioning?"

- 2. "Does the 5-second test really pass, or am I being generous?"

- 3. "Are these differentiators truly unique, or could any competitor claim them?"

- 4. "Would a prospect immediately understand what this product replaces?"

- 5. "Is the market focus decision backed by real TAM math or hopeful thinking?"

-

- ---

-

- ## Integration with Other Skills

-

- ### Positioning feeds INTO these skills

-

- | Skill | What It Receives | How It Uses It |

- |-------|------------------|----------------|

- | **product-messaging** | Positioning statement, anchors, differentiators | Shapes description, core messaging blocks |

- | **landing-page-copy** | Hero recommendation, one-liners | Hero section, headline formulas |

- | **sales-enablement** | One-liners, competitive alternatives, differentiators | Battlecard positioning, objection handling |

-

- ### Positioning receives FROM these skills

-

- | Skill | What It Provides | How Positioning Uses It |

- |-------|------------------|------------------------|

- | **icp-research** | Personas, pain points, VOC | Persona anchors, problem language |

- | **competitor-research** | Competitive landscape, gaps | Alternative mapping, differentiation |

- | **win-loss-analysis** | Decision criteria, objections | Real-world validation, angles |

-

- ### Complete PMM workflow

-

- ```text

- RESEARCH PHASE

- ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐

- │ icp-research │───▶│ competitor- │

- └─────────────┘ │ research │

- └────────┬─────────┘

- │

- STRATEGY PHASE ▼

- ┌──────────────────┐

- │ POSITIONING │ ◀── You are here

- │ (this skill) │

- └────────┬─────────┘

- │

- EXECUTION PHASE ▼

- ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐

- │landing-page-│◀───│ product-messaging│───▶│sales- │

- │copy │ │ │ │enablement │

- └─────────────┘ └──────────────────┘ └─────────────┘

- ---

-

- ## Changelog

- | Version | Date | Changes |

- |---------|------|---------|

- | 2.4 | 2026-03-03 | Added Activity as 4th primary anchor. Added Frameworks 13-15 (Decision Tree, Angle Archetypes, Proof Type Mapping). Enhanced Steps 2.3, 3.2, 3.7. |

- | 2.3 | 2026-02-22 | Added clarity ladder, guarantee test table, strategic implications mapping |

- | 2.2 | 2026-02-16 | Removed Phase 4 outputs (handled by downstream skills) |

- | 2.1 | 2026-01-21 | Enhanced anchor taxonomy, added Unique Value framework |

- | 2.0 | 2026-01-21 | Agentic enhancements: YAML frontmatter, flowchart, self-evaluation |

- | 1.0 | 2026-01-21 | Initial skill from Fletch PMM database (94 posts synthesized) |