#competitor analysis
2 prompts found
Perplexity Market Research Prompt: Query Plan and Ledger
Run market research in Perplexity with a plan: a question tree, a query sequence, sizing from cited figures, a competitor table, and a source ledger.
Act as a market research analyst who uses Perplexity as a cited search assistant: planning the questions first, running queries in a deliberate order, and accepting a figure only after opening its source. Inputs: - The market in one sentence: product or service, buyer, and price point: [MarketDefinition] - Country or region and the time window that matters (for example latest full year): [GeographyAndTime] - The decision this research must support, and the deadline: [DecisionToSupport] - Competitors I already know about: [KnownCompetitors] - The customer segment I care most about: [CustomerSegment] - Sources I trust or distrust, and sources that are off limits (for example paywalled reports I cannot verify): [SourceRules] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A market research question tree: the decision at the top, three to five key questions under it, and the sub questions that would answer each. 2. A Perplexity query sequence of 8 to 12 queries in run order. For each: the purpose, the exact query text, the source type to prefer (government statistics, company filings, trade associations, reputable press, reviews and forums for customer voice), and the answer shape to request (table, list with citations, quotes). 3. A market sizing plan with a top down path and a bottom up path, listing the inputs each needs. Fill an input only with a figure that Perplexity cited and I verified; otherwise write NEEDS SOURCE. 4. A competitor table template from KnownCompetitors plus any found in the queries: positioning, target segment, pricing as shown on their own site, channels, and notable claims quoted with the source. 5. Customer voice queries for CustomerSegment, and a coding scheme that sorts complaints and praise into themes with counts from the quotes collected. 6. An evidence ledger template: claim, figure, source title, publisher, publication date, URL, opened and checked (yes or no), and confidence. 7. A contradiction and staleness check: what to do when two sources disagree or a figure is older than the time window. 8. A one page readout outline for DecisionToSupport, with each finding linked to ledger rows. Constraints: - Perplexity citations can point to pages that do not support the claim; open and check every figure before it enters the ledger. - Never invent market sizes, growth rates, shares, or prices. - Follow SourceRules, and keep paywalled figures out unless I can see the number at the source. - No em dashes.
Competitor Intelligence & Positioning Brief
Build a competitor teardown: positioning, pricing, messaging, SEO footprint, and a differentiation map you can take to product and sales.
Act as a product marketer and competitive intelligence analyst writing a brief that product and sales can use next week. Separate Provided facts from Inferred judgments. Never invent pricing, customer counts, or quotes. Inputs: - Us: [Our product and who it is for] - Category: [Market name we claim, plus alternatives] - Competitors: [2-5 named competitors, including status-quo if relevant] - What we know: [Facts, links, quotes, pricing if you have it] - Audience for this brief: [Founder / product / sales / all] - Decision this should inform: [Positioning, pricing, roadmap, or a sales motion] Generate: 1. How to read this brief: Legend for Provided / Inferred / Unknown. List sources you used from Inputs. If a section would require live web data you do not have, mark Unknown instead of filling it. 2. Per-competitor teardown (each competitor, same structure): - One-line positioning (their claim, not ours). - Who they actually win (ICP guess labeled Inferred unless provided). - Product shape: core jobs, notable capabilities, obvious gaps vs Us (only where Inputs support it). - Pricing: paste only what is in Inputs. If missing, write "Unknown: do not guess list price" and note the likely commercial motion (self-serve / sales) as Inferred if needed. - Messaging: homepage promise, proof type they lean on, words they repeat. - SEO / acquisition footprint: only if Inputs include it; otherwise 3 search questions to answer later, not fake keyword volumes. - Why we lose to them. Why we win. Switch triggers. 3. Comparison matrix: Rows = 8-12 buying criteria a real committee would use. Columns = Us + each competitor. Cells = Yes / Partial / No / Unknown. No silent guesses: if you do not know, Unknown. 4. Differentiation map: Plot (in words) 2 axes that matter to buyers, not vanity axes. Place each player. Call out the empty space that is real vs. the empty space that is a trap. 5. Positioning options (3): Each is a distinct bet. For each: claim, who it is for, who it alienates (required: name a real segment we will not serve), proof we would need, risk. Recommend one and say what evidence would change your mind. 6. Battle cards (one per competitor, sales-ready): When we see them. Landmine question. Trap we should not step in. Three contrasts that are fair. Objection they will raise. A line we will not say. 7. Watch list: 6 signals (pricing page changes, feature launches, hiring, integration partners, SEO movements, review-site shifts). What each would mean for Us. Constraints: - Do not invent pricing, ARR, customer logos, traffic numbers, or "they raised a Series B." - Label every inference. - Status-quo (spreadsheets, email, agencies, do-nothing) counts as a competitor if it is how deals actually die. - Positioning that does not alienate anyone is a rejected option. Rewrite it. - Tone: Briefing doc. Short sentences. No "exciting space" language.