| name | positioning-angles |
| description | Find and state a market positioning that differentiates the user's offer: match the message to the market's maturity stage, name the unique mechanism, choose one psychological angle, and pressure-test the result. Use when the user asks 'how do I position this', 'how do I stand out', 'why should anyone pick us', 'write my value prop / tagline / headline claim', 'our marketing sounds like everyone else's', or when any copy or content work stalls because there's no clear core claim — even if they never say the word positioning. Also works in audit mode on an existing positioning. Produces a Positioning Statement: market stage, named mechanism, chosen angle with the claim written out, and a pass/fail test record. |
Positioning Angles
Produce a positioning statement the rest of the marketing system can repeat: one claim, built from the market's stage, the offer's unique mechanism, and a single psychological angle. Governing principle: positioning is not being better, it's being different in a way the audience cares about — and one angle typically outperforms the others by a wide margin, so commit to one and treat it as a bet to test, not a truth.
When to use / when not to
- Use whenever a core claim is missing, weak, or generic — before landing pages, content strategy, or email work.
- If the user is unsure the product itself is differentiated (not just the message), hand off to
skills/product-strategy/foundation-sprint — it pressure-tests the underlying bet with a differentiation 2x2; come back here to turn its output into market-facing language.
- If the claim exists and the user needs it written into a page, use
skills/marketing/direct-response-copy.
- Audit mode: user has positioning but doubts it → skip to Step 4 and run the three tests against it; fix the failing part using the matching step.
Intake
One batch; skip anything already known from context or from skills/marketing/orchestrator:
- What do you sell, in one sentence, and to whom?
- What are the 2–3 alternatives your customer actually compares you to (including "do nothing" or a spreadsheet)?
- What do you do differently from those alternatives — any step, ingredient, or approach they skip?
- How saturated is your market: do you have to explain the category, or is the buyer already drowning in options and skeptical claims?
Don't stall: if the product and market are recognizable, infer stage and competitors, state assumptions, and proceed.
Workflow
1. Diagnose the market stage
The market's maturity dictates the message form. Classify using the signals, then adopt that stage's approach:
| Stage | Signal (how to identify) | Approach | Template |
|---|
| NEW | You must explain what the category is | Simple promise | "Now you can [X]" |
| GROWING | Competitors exist but aren't saturating ads/content | Bigger claim | "[X] in [specific time]" |
| CROWDED | Multiple well-known players, active advertising | Show mechanism | "The [method] that works" |
| JADED | Buyers say "all [X] are scams"; category has burned people | Prove it | "[Data/proof] that shows [X]" |
| MATURE | Clear leaders; buyers identify with brands | Sell identity | "For [people who are X]" |
Decision rule: when torn between two stages, pick the more mature one — over-claiming into a skeptical market fails harder than under-claiming into a fresh one.
2. Find and name the mechanism
The mechanism is the "how" behind the results — what the user does that competitors skip.
- List every step in how the offer delivers its result.
- Mark the steps competitors skip or do differently.
- That difference is the mechanism. Name it: "The [X] Method / System" — the name should hint at why it works. Never ship "our approach" or "our process".
Examples of the move: "our coaching methodology" → "The 5-4-3-2-1 Accountability System"; "our hiring process" → "The Reverse Interview Method". If Step 2 turns up nothing competitors skip, say so plainly — the user has a differentiation problem, not a messaging problem; route to skills/product-strategy/foundation-sprint.
3. Draft angles — user decides
Draft 3–5 genuinely distinct candidate claims across different angle types (don't give five variants of one angle), each written out in full using the templates below, then have the user pick ONE primary.
| Angle | Trigger it pulls | Template | Best when |
|---|
| CONTRARIAN | Doubt in conventional wisdom | "Everything you know about [X] is wrong" | Common approaches are visibly failing people |
| TRANSFORMATION | Desire for the after-state | "From [painful state] to [desired state]" | Clear, emotionally large before/after gap |
| ENEMY | Frustration at a villain | "Stop letting [X] steal your [Y]" | Audience shares anger at a specific entity/problem |
| SPEED | Impatience | "[Outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice]" | You genuinely deliver faster — never otherwise |
| SPECIFICITY | "That's exactly me" | "For [exact person] who wants [exact thing]" | Crowded market where you can own a niche |
Calibration examples: "From broke freelancer to $20K/month agency owner" (transformation); "Stop letting algorithms steal your reach" (enemy); "Fluent Spanish in 3 months without grammar drills" (speed); "For SaaS founders who want to hit $10K MRR" (specificity).
Decision rules: JADED market → contrarian or proof-led claims work; enemy angle only if the villain is real and shared; speed angle only if the time claim is honest and deliverable; when nothing else clearly wins, specificity is the safest default in a crowded market.
4. Test the chosen claim
All three must pass:
| Test | Question | Fails like | Passes like |
|---|
| Specific? | Concrete numbers, timeframe, or details? | "Get better results" | "Lose 20 lbs in 6 weeks" |
| Differentiated? | Could a competitor paste this claim onto their site? | "Quality marketing services" | "The Reverse Funnel Method for coaches" |
| Believable? | Does the mechanism or proof support it? | "Become a millionaire overnight" | "Add $5K/month with 3 LinkedIn posts a week" |
Fix rules: not specific → add numbers/timeframes; not differentiated → lead with the named mechanism; not believable → shrink the claim or attach proof. Re-test after each fix.
5. Assemble
Formula: [stage-appropriate form] + [named mechanism] + [chosen angle].
Worked example: crowded market → show mechanism; mechanism = "The Micro-Launch Method"; angle = speed → "The Micro-Launch Method: launch your course in 2 weeks without building an audience first."
Required output format
# Positioning Statement — [Offer]
**The claim:** "[final positioning, one sentence, usable as a headline]"
## How it was built
| Element | Decision | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Market stage | NEW/GROWING/CROWDED/JADED/MATURE | [signal observed] |
| Mechanism | The [name] | [what competitors skip] |
| Angle | [one of five] | [why this trigger fits this audience] |
| Runner-up angle | [claim] | [when to switch to it] |
## Test record
- Specific: PASS/FAIL — [evidence]
- Differentiated: PASS/FAIL — [evidence]
- Believable: PASS/FAIL — [mechanism/proof cited]
## Assumptions to validate
- [each market/competitor inference made, phrased as a testable assumption]
**Next test:** run the primary claim against the runner-up in [cheapest real channel — ad headline test, landing page A/B, 5 customer conversations] before scaling it.
Quality bar (check before delivering)
Integration
- Upstream:
skills/marketing/orchestrator routes here first on most paths; skills/product-strategy/foundation-sprint supplies the differentiation bet when product-level differentiation is unsettled — its founding hypothesis translates directly into Steps 2–3 here.
- Downstream: the positioning statement is consumed by
skills/marketing/brand-voice (voice must carry this claim), skills/marketing/keyword-research (seeds the keyword universe), skills/marketing/lead-magnet (shapes the offer), and skills/marketing/direct-response-copy (the claim becomes the page's spine). What crosses the boundary is the one-sentence claim plus the named mechanism.
