market

CONTEXT LOADING

Before executing, check for innov.local.md in the working directory. If found, extract:

• venture: name, stage, type, problem_statement, target_customer, unfair_advantage
• competitive_landscape: direct_competitors, indirect_alternatives, differentiation, moat_building
• financial_model: unit_economics (for value capture validation)
• customer_profiles: personas, pains

If innov.local.md is not found: Continue with conversation context. After first substantive output, prompt: "I'm working without your venture context. Run Exercise 8 from Chapter 40 to build innov.local.md -- it will make every subsequent output specific to your venture rather than generic."

STAGE-AWARE CALIBRATION

Check venture.stage and calibrate:

• IDEA: Market research is useful at any stage -- understanding the landscape helps focus ideation.
• DISCOVERY: Market research is valuable alongside customer discovery.
• VALIDATION: Market research should inform your positioning and pricing assumptions.
• MVP: Market intelligence helps you position against competitors your customers mention.
• GROWTH: This is your focus stage for competitive intelligence and market expansion analysis.

DLA PROGRESSION CHECK

No skip warning needed -- market intelligence is valuable at all stages. If venture has no competitive_landscape in innov.local.md: "You have no competitive landscape documented. Understanding your competitors and alternatives is critical for positioning. Even at the earliest stage, know what customers use today."

MARKET INTELLIGENCE WORKFLOW

Task Types

TYPE 1: COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE SCAN Input: Product/problem area; known competitors; target segment Output: Competitor profiles (positioning, pricing, strengths, weaknesses, threat level) + strategic recommendation

TYPE 2: MARKET SIZING (BOTTOM-UP) Input: Target segment definition; pricing; usage data from pilots Output: TAM / SAM / SOM with bottom-up methodology + value capture validation

TYPE 3: DIFFERENTIATION MAP Input: Competitor list; our value proposition Output: Positioning map; where we win; where we lose; defensibility assessment

TYPE 4: MARKET TIMING ANALYSIS Input: Problem area Output: "Why now?" -- forces making this the right time (tech, regulation, behaviour, cost)

TYPE 5: MOAT ASSESSMENT Input: Venture context Output: Current moats; moats being built; how defensible each is; what to invest in

Competitive Intelligence Output Structure

COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE -- [Product Area]
Date: [Date] | Segment: [Target segment]
================================================================
DIRECT COMPETITORS (solving the same problem for the same customer):

  [Competitor Name]
  Positioning:      [How they describe themselves; who they target]
  Pricing:          [If available; or "undisclosed -- estimated $X based on...]
  Strengths vs. us: [Where they are genuinely stronger]
  Weaknesses vs. us: [Where we have an advantage]
  Threat level:     HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
  Threat reason:    [Specific -- funding, distribution, brand, feature parity]

  [Repeat for each direct competitor -- typically 3-6]

INDIRECT ALTERNATIVES (solving the problem differently):

  [Alternative -- could be "Excel + manual process" or an adjacent tool]
  Why customers use it: [Inertia / price / familiarity / integration]
  Our advantage:        [Specific -- why we win against this alternative]

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION:
  Where to win:   [The specific customer/use case where we have clear advantage]
  Where to avoid: [Segments where we are outgunned by incumbents]
  Differentiation to defend: [The one claim we must never let a competitor match]
================================================================

Bottom-Up Market Sizing Method

Step 1 -- COUNT the customers: How many organisations in your target segment exist in your geography? Source: business registries, census data, industry associations, LinkedIn counts

Step 2 -- QUALIFY the reachable subset: Of those, how many meet the ICP criteria?

Step 3 -- PRICE the opportunity: What does one customer pay per year? (from unit economics)

Step 4 -- CALCULATE: TAM = Total addressable count x annual price (everyone who has the problem, globally) SAM = Reachable count in your geography x annual price (companies you could sell to) SOM = Your 3-5 year capture target x annual price (1-5% of SAM is typical)

Step 5 -- VALIDATE the value capture ratio: SaaS rule of thumb: your price should be <10% of the value you deliver. If value delivered = $10,000/year and you charge $1,000/year: healthy. If you charge $8,000/year: customers will eventually find alternatives.

Moat Assessment Framework

MOAT TYPE 1 -- DATA: Do you accumulate data that gets more valuable with use? Durability: HIGH -- hard to replicate without time and customers

MOAT TYPE 2 -- SWITCHING COSTS: How painful is it for a customer to switch to a competitor? Durability: MEDIUM-HIGH -- increases with tenure

MOAT TYPE 3 -- NETWORK EFFECTS: Does the product get more valuable as more people use it? Durability: HIGH -- but only true network effects count

MOAT TYPE 4 -- BRAND: Do customers trust you more than alternatives by reputation alone? Durability: MEDIUM -- can be built over 5+ years; fragile early

MOAT TYPE 5 -- REGULATORY / COMPLIANCE: Are you certified or approved in ways that competitors are not? Durability: MEDIUM -- regulatory moats can be matched; but slow

MOAT TYPE 6 -- DISTRIBUTION: Do you have access to customers that competitors cannot easily reach? Durability: MEDIUM -- partnerships can change

FINANCIAL REASONING STANDARD

For market sizing and value capture validation:

• Always use bottom-up methodology, not top-down analyst TAM
• Validate value capture ratio: price should be <10% of value delivered
• Cross-reference market size with unit economics from /financials
• If market size relies on pricing assumptions, flag the dependency

ASSUMPTION TRACKING

After any market output:

• Surface any market or competitive assumption that changed
• Propose innov.local.md competitive_landscape updates
• Identify the most critical untested market assumption
• Always distinguish between ASSUMED, ANECDOTAL, and VALIDATED evidence

NEVER DO THESE

• NEVER claim "no direct competition" -- if there is genuinely no competition, there is likely no market; or you have not looked hard enough
• NEVER use top-down analyst TAM figures without a bottom-up sanity check
• NEVER describe a competitor only in terms of their weaknesses -- investors will have heard of them; describe their real strengths honestly, then explain why you win anyway
• NEVER claim a moat you do not yet have -- describe moats you are building, not moats you aspire to

ALL OUTPUTS REQUIRE REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL BEFORE USE IN BUSINESS DECISIONS.