Competitive intelligence

Competitive Intelligence

A sequential three-phase pipeline. Run the phases in order. Each phase produces the artifact the next phase consumes.

Phase 1: Scope & Tier  →  Phase 2: Score  →  Phase 3: Report
(who to benchmark)        (how they compare)   (what to do)

---

Prerequisites: Client Positioning Brief

All three phases require the positioning brief. Establish it first via brand-discovery or a short interview. It supplies:

• Identity / aesthetic register — what kind of company this is and how it presents itself.
• Offer — what services or products it delivers.
• Target clients — who it sells to.
• Differentiator — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
• Scoping consequence — how to weight competitors (by distinctiveness vs. capability vs. price).
• Strategic tension — the paired axes defining the client's white-space (e.g., memorability × hireability).

Do not proceed without the positioning brief. A competitor list built without the client's lens is noise.

---

Phase 1 — Scope & Tier

Decide who to benchmark and where to find them before any scoring begins.

Selection criteria

Capture these axes for each candidate — they decide inclusion and tier:

• Size / model — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size agency. Same-band studios are the realistic head-to-head.
• Niche / specialization — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with the client's offer.
• Geography / market — EU vs US vs global-remote; whether they win the same clients.
• Pricing & engagement model — productized sprints, retainer, project, day-rate; transparent vs "contact us".
• Portfolio style — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian.
• Technical depth / craft maturity — public process work, open tooling, documented systems.
• Brand strength — ownable identity vs. interchangeable.

Eight-axis taxonomy

Sort competitors along these axes rather than niche-specific buckets:

1. Positioning stance — brand-led/editorial vs. capability-led.
2. Specialization — specialist vs. generalist.
3. Size / model — solo/micro vs. boutique vs. mid-size vs. enterprise-scale.
4. Engagement format — productized vs. bespoke.
5. Distinctiveness posture — conventional/safe vs. contrarian/manifesto-driven.
6. Evidence / credibility model — outcome-led vs. aesthetic-led.
7. Brand strength of the operator — interchangeable vs. cult/ownable.
8. Market / reach — local/regional vs. global-remote.

Competitive tiers

Tier	Who belongs
Direct	Same band, overlapping offer, same client targets. The realistic head-to-head.
Adjacent	Partial overlap (one capability, or different client size). Pressures at the edges.
Aspirational	Players the client is not competing with today but whose brand or commercial maturity sets the bar.
(Substitutes)	No-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers — note as threat vectors, not profiled competitors.

Data sources

• Portfolio / craft platforms (Dribbble, Behance, Vimeo, or niche equivalent)
• Awards / curated showcases (Awwwards, industry lists)
• Competitor's own site — primary source for positioning, voice, offer packaging
• LinkedIn — team size, founder narrative, geography
• Review directories (Clutch.co or niche equivalent) — named clients, project sizes, commercial credibility
• Open / public work — process repos, published samples
• Talks / podcasts / newsletters — thought-leadership depth

Always verify claims across at least two sources before treating an attribute as fact.

Pre-filter scoring matrix

Score 1–5; keep candidates that score high on either distinctiveness or credibility.

Candidate	Positioning stance	Specialization	Size band	Tier	Offer overlap (1–5)	Distinctiveness (1–5)	Commercial credibility (1–5)	Craft proximity (1–5)	Include?

Rules of thumb:

• High distinctiveness and high credibility → must-profile.
• High distinctiveness, low credibility → cautionary case.
• High credibility, low distinctiveness → "competent but forgettable" — useful as contrast.
• Low on both → drop unless needed for landscape breadth.

Phase 1 output: A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 10–18 candidates → 8–12 profiled), each tagged with axis positions, tier, and source links. Hand to Phase 2.

---

Phase 2 — Score

Turn the scoped competitor set into comparable, defensible scores.

The nine dimensions (with weights)

Weights guide synthesis emphasis — do NOT create a blended total column.

1. Positioning clarity & distinctiveness (18%)
2. Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness (15%)
3. Visual identity & site craft (15%)
4. Service offer & packaging (12%)
5. Evidence & credibility (12%)
6. Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity (10%)
7. Thought leadership / content presence (8%)
8. Pricing transparency & engagement model (5%)
9. [Client's strategic tension] (5% as flag — score BOTH poles separately, never averaged)

Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)

Anchor every score to observable evidence.

• 1 — Absent / generic. Indistinguishable from a template. Active liability.
• 2 — Below par. Some intent but inconsistent or derivative. Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
• 3 — Competent / table-stakes. Solid, unremarkable. Meets expectation, ownable by nobody.
• 4 — Strong / distinctive. Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer would notice.
• 5 — Category-defining. Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the bar others react to.

Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5

Read axis labels and 1/3/5 anchors from the positioning brief. Example for memorability × credibility:

• Memorability — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context · 5: unforgettable, distinctively owned.
• Credibility — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent, unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.

Plot on a 2×2. Who else occupies the client's target quadrant is the single most important finding.

Data collection order (cheapest signal first)

1. Competitor's own site — positioning, voice, offer packaging, named clients, manifesto.
2. Case studies / work — evidence depth, quantified outcomes. Distinguish asserted from proven.
3. Review directories — corroborate clients, project size, commercial credibility.
4. LinkedIn — team model, thought leadership.
5. Portfolio / craft platforms — craft register.
6. Content channels — thought-leadership depth.

Record per dimension: score, one-line justification, source link. No score without evidence.

Bias controls

• No single composite score — report dimension scores and the tension plot separately.
• Distinguish asserted from proven — downgrade credibility for unverified claims.
• Avoid aesthetic affinity bias — score craft and credibility independently.
• Avoid flashiness bias — verify commercial credibility against directories.
• Calibrate across the set — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.

Competitor profile card (Phase 2 output)

One card per profiled competitor:

## <Competitor name>
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>

### Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |

### Tension plot
- **[Axis 1]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **[Axis 2]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>

### Read for [client]
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>

---

Phase 3 — Report

Assemble scored profile cards into a decision-grade report. Every section earns its place by answering one of three questions: who do we compete with, how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?

Framing principle

The report is organized around the client's strategic tension. Every recommendation resolves back to the client's deliberate brand balance. Recommendations that would shift that balance must be explicitly flagged.

Report sections

1. Executive summary — 3–5 takeaways, decision-first. Most important findings, no methodology. Written so a founder reads only this and knows what to do.

2. Market landscape & category framing — 2×2 map (minimum), ideally the client's tension plot as the headline. Place every profiled competitor and the client.

3. Competitor tiers — one short paragraph per tier (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) explaining who's in it and why.

4. Benchmarking matrix — full competitors × dimensions table with heatmap. Dimension 9 = two sub-columns (tension poles), never averaged. Include the client's own honest self-assessment row. No blended total column.

5. Deep dives — 3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from profile cards). Choose for instruction: best exemplar of the target tension, cautionary one-pole-only case, "competent but forgettable" archetype, sharpest direct threat.

6. White-space & threats — the strategic heart. Confirm whether the target quadrant is genuinely open. Identify threats: rivals closing the gap, substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams), category shifts.

7. Strategic recommendations — concrete, prioritized moves. Tie every recommendation to the brand balance from the positioning brief. Flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact × effort.

8. Sources / methodology appendix — dimensions, weights, rubrics, scoped set with tiers, source links, verification notes. What makes the report auditable and defensible.

Decision framework (the report must resolve these)

• Who do we compete with? — Name the Direct tier specifically.
• How do we compete? — State the client's differentiator in one sentence, grounded in the matrix.
• Where are our differentiators defensible? — Identify the dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy.

Team alignment trigger questions

• Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in?
• Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and what's the counter?
• Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis shift?
• Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to deliberately concede?
• What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness without costing hireability / credibility?

---

Anti-Patterns (all phases)

• Scoping without a positioning brief.
• Listing every similar company instead of pruning to 10–18 candidates.
• Blurring the Direct/Adjacent/Aspirational tiers.
• Relying on a single source per competitor.
• Running Phase 2 before Phase 1 is complete.
• Averaging the tension axes — the gap between poles IS the insight.
• Scoring without evidence.
• Adding a blended total column to the matrix.
• Leading the report with methodology (it belongs in the appendix).
• Omitting the decision framework from the report.

---

Migration Notes

Deprecated skill	Replaced by	Phase
competitive-platform-analysis	competitive-intelligence	Phase 1
benchmark-methodology	competitive-intelligence	Phase 2
competitive-report-structure	competitive-intelligence	Phase 3

Related Skills

• brand-discovery — use first to establish the positioning brief.