| name | codexkit-brand-positioning-canvas |
| description | Build or refine brand positioning with audience, category, differentiators, proof, tone, JTBD signals, and competitive context. Use when marketing, founders, or GTM teams need a positioning canvas, messaging pillars, or campaign foundation. Do not use for isolated ad copy tweaks with no strategy question. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | knowledge |
Brand Positioning Canvas
Purpose
Create a positioning foundation that sharpens how a brand should show up and what it should claim.
When to use
- A product or brand needs sharper differentiation.
- A campaign or launch lacks a strategic messaging base.
- A team needs shared language for audience, value, and proof.
When not to use
- The request is only to rewrite one headline or ad line.
- No audience, category, or competitor context exists at all.
Inputs
- product or service offer
- target audience and known customer signals
- competitors or substitutes
- proof points, credibility assets, and brand tone
- business goals for the positioning work
Procedure
- Define the audience and the job they are trying to get done.
- Clarify the category and what alternatives customers compare against.
- Surface the few differentiators that are both meaningful and provable.
- Translate that into a positioning statement, brand voice, and message pillars.
- State what the brand is not, to avoid mushy positioning.
- Flag claims that lack proof or strategic focus.
Output
- positioning canvas
- target audience and JTBD summary
- differentiators and reasons to believe
- tone and message pillars
- anti-positioning or "not us" guardrails
Definition of done
- Differentiation is explicit and supportable.
- The output can guide messaging beyond one campaign.
- The team can see what claims to avoid.
Examples
- "Help us position our B2B product against two bigger competitors."
- "Build a positioning canvas we can use before rewriting the website."
Quality Criteria
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|
| Correctness | Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions? |
| Completeness | Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience? |
| Context-fit | Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic? |
| Consequence | If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret? |
Edge Cases
- Conflicting frameworks — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly.
- Rapidly changing domain — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates.
- Audience has mixed expertise levels — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional.
Changelog
