cm-competitive-response-prep

name	cm-competitive-response-prep
description	Prepares structured competitive response materials when a competitive threat is detected on an account. Assembles value evidence, competitive differentiation, switching cost analysis, and a response framework for the CSM. Use when asked to prepare a competitive response, build a retention case against a competitor, create a win-back plan, or when bi-competitive-intel has flagged a competitive signal that the CSM is preparing to address. Also triggers for questions about competitive positioning, win-back preparation, retention defence strategy, or handling a customer evaluation.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Stephen Rogan","version":"1.0.0","pillar":"commercial-motion","category":"commercial-ops"}

Competitive Response Prep

Prepares account-specific competitive response materials when a threat is detected. Assembles value evidence, switching cost analysis, and response framework. Part of the Commercial Motion pillar.

This is a preparation and evidence assembly skill. It arms the CSM with data and structure. The response strategy, conversation execution, and relationship management are entirely human-led.

When to Run

• Triggered: When CSM acknowledges a competitive signal from bi-competitive-intel and requests preparation
• On-demand: When a CSM knows a competitive threat exists and needs materials
• Triggered: By lo-renewal-manager when a renewal is At Risk or Critical with a competitive signal present

Core Execution Logic

Step 1: Assess the Competitive Situation

From the bi-competitive-intel signal and CSM input, classify:

Dimension	Options	Why It Matters
Competitor	Named competitor or unknown	Determines whether specific differentiation is possible
Scope	Full displacement vs. partial overlap	Full displacement requires a different response than a point solution competing on one feature
Evaluation stage	Early consideration, active evaluation, decision imminent	Urgency and approach differ dramatically by stage
Trigger	Product gap, pricing, service failure, proactive competitor outreach, or strategic priority shift	Addressing the root cause is more effective than defending against the competitor

Step 2: Assemble Retention Evidence

Value already delivered (the strongest retention argument):

• ROI metrics from pa-value-reporter -- quantified outcomes the customer has achieved
• Usage depth from pa-adoption-tracker -- show how embedded the product is in their workflows
• Time invested in configuration, integrations, and training -- this is sunk cost the customer may not have quantified

Switching cost analysis (for internal CSM use -- not customer-facing):

Cost Category	Estimation Method
Data migration	Complexity of moving historical data, configurations, and workflows to a new platform
Integration rebuilding	Number of active integrations * estimated rebuild time per integration
Team retraining	Number of trained users * estimated training hours for a new platform
Workflow reconstruction	Number of configured workflows * estimated rebuild time
Productivity loss	Estimated weeks of reduced productivity during transition
Opportunity cost	Projects that would be delayed while the team focuses on migration

Total switching cost estimate: express in both time (weeks/months) and cost (estimated labour hours * loaded cost per hour) if possible.

Competitive differentiation:

• Feature comparison on the specific capabilities the customer cares about (not a generic feature matrix)
• Areas where your product is objectively stronger for this customer's use case
• Areas where the competitor may be stronger -- acknowledge these honestly. The CSM loses credibility if they dismiss legitimate competitor advantages

Step 3: Build Response Framework

The framework provides structure for the conversation, not a script.

By evaluation stage:

Stage	Approach	Key Message
Early consideration	Proactive value reinforcement. Do not mention the competitor	"I want to make sure we are covering everything you need"
Active evaluation	Address the underlying need that triggered the evaluation	"Help me understand what prompted this. I want to address the root cause"
Decision imminent	Direct engagement. May require executive involvement and commercial flexibility	"I would like the chance to address [root cause] before you make a final decision"

By trigger:

Trigger	Response Focus
Product gap	Show the roadmap if applicable. Offer workaround. Be honest if the gap is real and not planned
Pricing	Lead with value, then discuss pricing. Compete on ROI, not on sticker price
Service failure	Acknowledge, apologise, show the recovery plan. The competitor did not win -- you lost. Win back by being better
Proactive competitor outreach	The customer was not looking. Reinforce the relationship. Ensure value is visible. Make the competitor's pitch irrelevant
Strategic priority shift	Reposition your product's value in the context of the new priorities. If the product genuinely no longer fits, be honest

Step 4: Generate Materials

{
  "account_id": "string",
  "competitive_situation": {
    "competitor": "Competitor X",
    "scope": "full_displacement",
    "evaluation_stage": "active_evaluation",
    "trigger": "product_gap",
    "trigger_detail": "Customer needs custom reporting that current tier does not support"
  },
  "retention_evidence": {
    "value_delivered": {
      "headline": "340 hours saved in Q1, 2847 automated workflows",
      "roi_estimate": "3.2x return on annual investment"
    },
    "switching_cost": {
      "integrations_at_risk": 3,
      "trained_users": 47
       
       
       
       
    
     
         
         
       
    
  
   
     
     
     
     
     
  
   
     
     
     
  
   

Handoff to Human

Decision Point	Context Provided	What the Human Decides
Response strategy	Situation assessment, evidence, framework	How to approach the conversation -- direct vs. indirect, timing, channel
Competitive acknowledgement	Differentiation analysis with honest gaps	Whether and how to acknowledge the competitor. Some CSMs prefer to never name the competitor; others address it head-on. Depends on the relationship
Executive involvement	Escalation recommendation, account ARR, renewal timeline	Whether to bring in leadership from their side and yours
Commercial concessions	Authority parameters, switching cost context	What to offer, when to offer it, and what to require in return
Product escalation	Product gap analysis, competitive urgency	Whether to escalate to the product team for roadmap acceleration or workaround development

Confidence and Limitations

• High confidence for evidence assembly -- value data, switching cost analysis, and feature comparison are factual
• Medium confidence for evaluation stage assessment -- the CSM's read on how far the evaluation has progressed is more reliable than the agent's inference from data signals
• Medium confidence for differentiation analysis -- feature comparisons are objective, but the relevance of each differentiator to this customer requires human judgment
• Low confidence for response strategy -- how to handle a competitive threat depends entirely on relationship dynamics, evaluation stage, and customer politics that the agent cannot assess
• Cannot determine whether the competitor has made a specific commercial offer
• Cannot assess the customer's internal decision-making timeline with precision
• Switching cost estimates are approximations. Actual migration cost depends on factors specific to the customer's implementation (data volume, integration complexity, internal technical resources)

Dependencies

Required:

• bi-competitive-intel (competitive signal that triggers the preparation)
• pa-value-reporter (value evidence for the retention case)
• CRM API (contract data, account context)

Strongly recommended:

• pa-adoption-tracker (adoption depth for switching cost context)
• bi-account-brief (full account context)
• ra-stakeholder-mapper (who is involved in the evaluation decision)

References

• references/competitive-response-frameworks.md -- Response templates by evaluation stage, differentiation analysis structure, and escalation decision criteria