Positioning Statement
How are you different — and can you prove it in one sentence?
Business Alignment
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Venture name | [name] |
| ICP completed? (from template 3) | YES / NO |
| Model selected? (from template 5) | YES / NO |
| What conviction level is this positioning? | HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NONE |
| What would make this positioning wrong? | [market shift, competitor move] |
Procedure
- List 5-7 real competitors. Not categories ("agencies") — named companies with URLs.
- Fill the Competitive Map. Score honestly. If you score yourself 5/5 on everything, you're lying.
- Write the positioning statement using the formula. Every word must be earned.
- Test with the Inversion Check. If the opposite sounds absurd, your positioning says nothing.
- Build proof points. Claims without evidence are slogans.
- Run the Sentence Test.
Competitive Map
Name competitors. Score each on dimensions that matter to your ICP's top pain.
| Dimension | You | [Competitor 1] | [Competitor 2] | [Competitor 3] | [Competitor 4] | [Competitor 5] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [dimension from ICP pain] | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| [dimension from ICP pain] | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| [dimension from ICP pain] | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| [dimension from ICP pain] | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Price | [range] | [range] | [range] | [range] | [range] | [range] |
Where You Win
| Dimension | Your Score | Best Competitor Score | Gap | Sustainable? | Conviction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [strongest dim] | /5 | /5 | [+/-] | YES / NO | |
| [second strongest] | /5 | /5 |
Where You Lose
| Dimension | Your Score | Best Competitor Score | Gap | Does ICP Care? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [weakest dim] | /5 | /5 | [+/-] | HIGH / LOW |
| [second weakest] | /5 | /5 |
If you lose on a dimension the ICP cares about highly, your positioning must address it — or you need a different ICP.
Positioning Statement
Formula:
For [ICP from template 3] who [top pain from ICP pain map], [venture name] is the [category] that [key differentiator]. Unlike [primary alternative], we [proof of difference].
Your statement:
For [] who [], [] is the [] that []. Unlike [], we [___].
Inversion Check
Write the opposite of your positioning. If it sounds absurd, your positioning is too generic.
| Your claim | The opposite | Absurd? |
|---|---|---|
| [key differentiator] | [opposite] | YES = rewrite / NO = real position |
Example:
- "We're fast" --> opposite: "We're slow" --> absurd (nobody claims to be slow) --> too generic
- "We show you the math behind every recommendation" --> opposite: "We hide the math" --> plausible (competitors do this) --> real position
Proof Points
Every claim needs evidence. No evidence = no claim.
| Claim | Proof Type | Specific Evidence | Conviction |
|---|---|---|---|
| [differentiator 1] | Data / Testimonial / Demo / Patent | [specific] | |
| [differentiator 2] | |||
| [differentiator 3] |
Category Choice
| Option | Category Label | Advantage | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing category | [e.g. "CRM"] | Understood immediately | Compared to incumbents |
| Subcategory | [e.g. "AI-native CRM"] | Narrows comparison set | May need education |
| New category | [e.g. "Revenue Intelligence"] | No competition frame | Must educate market |
Selected: [which and why]
Market Context
| Factor | Status | Impact on Positioning | Country Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory environment | [favorable/neutral/hostile] | [how it affects your claim] | [country page link] |
| Market maturity | [early/growth/mature] | [category education needed?] | |
| Cultural factors | [relevant norms] | [does positioning translate?] | [country page link] |
Sentence Test
"[Venture name] is the only [category] that [differentiator] for [ICP]. Proof: [evidence]. Unlike [competitor], we [specific difference]."
Gold Standard
A completed positioning for a hypothetical AI bookkeeping tool:
For owner-operators of NZ trade businesses (plumbers, electricians, builders) with 5-20 staff who lose a full day every month chasing receipts and reconciling Xero, TradeBooks is the AI bookkeeper that reads your bank feed and codes transactions using your trade-specific patterns. Unlike generic accounting automation, we learn the difference between Placemakers (materials) and Bunnings (tools) on day one because we only serve trades.
Inversion check: "We don't learn trade-specific patterns" — plausible, competitors serve everyone generically. Real position.
Proof points:
- Demo: upload 3 months of bank statements, see 90%+ auto-coded in 2 minutes
- Testimonial: "Saved me every second Friday" — specific tradesperson
- Data: 94% accuracy on trade transactions vs 71% for generic tools
Category: Subcategory ("AI bookkeeper for trades") — narrows the field, no education needed on what bookkeeping is.
Questions
If your competitor read your positioning statement, would they feel threatened — or would they shrug because it could describe anyone?
- Which proof point is strongest — and is that the one your ICP would find most convincing?
- If you removed the "Unlike" clause, does the statement still differentiate?
- What would a customer say about you that you'd never put in marketing copy — and is that your real position?