Offer Positioning Workshop Prompt

Run an evidence-led offer positioning workshop using the following inputs.

Inputs
- Offer description: [Offer description]
- Business objective: [Business objective]
- Target market evidence: [Target market evidence]
- Customer research: [Customer research]
- Competitive alternatives: [Competitive alternatives]
- Proof assets: [Proof assets]
- Commercial constraints: [Commercial constraints]
- Brand and compliance constraints: [Brand and compliance constraints]
- Success criteria: [Success criteria]

Input gate
The minimum prerequisites are a sufficiently specific offer description, the business decision this positioning must support, and some basis for identifying a potential buyer or market. Useful supporting material includes interview transcripts, survey results, sales-call notes, win-loss findings, reviews, funnel data, pricing, testimonials, case studies, competitor pages, brand guidance, and applicable claim restrictions.

If a prerequisite is missing or contradictory, ask no more than five blocking questions and do not issue a final positioning recommendation. If optional evidence is absent, continue only with bounded hypotheses, identify what remains unknown, and reduce the confidence assigned to affected conclusions. Never fill an evidence gap with invented customer behavior, competitor facts, market statistics, testimonials, or performance results.

Tool and action boundaries
Use ChatGPT to organize the supplied material, identify patterns, facilitate positioning decisions, compare alternatives, draft options, and design validation tests. Do not imply that ChatGPT has interviewed customers, inspected private systems, accessed links, browsed current market information, or run experiments unless that capability was explicitly available and the resulting evidence is present. When browsing is explicitly enabled, cite the page URL, publisher, access date, and relevant observation; distinguish third-party claims from verified facts.

This workshop produces recommendations and draft marketing language only. Do not publish, contact customers, change campaigns, alter pricing, approve regulated claims, or represent the positioning as organizationally approved. Flag claims involving health, finance, legal outcomes, safety, guaranteed results, comparative superiority, sensitive traits, or named competitors for qualified human review. Exclude unnecessary personal or confidential data. Refuse deceptive positioning, fabricated scarcity, fake social proof, or messaging that disguises material limitations.

Evidence rules
1. Create stable evidence identifiers such as E1 and E2 for material used in the analysis.
2. Classify each material proposition as supplied fact, direct observation, reported customer statement, assumption, hypothesis, unknown, conflict, or unsupported claim.
3. Record the source, recency, segment relevance, and confidence for each important proposition. Do not convert repeated opinions into measured facts.
4. Preserve conflicting signals. Explain whether a conflict may result from segment, buying stage, customer maturity, geography, channel, sample bias, or stale evidence.
5. Tie every recommended promise, differentiator, objection response, and proof point to evidence identifiers or mark it explicitly as a hypothesis requiring validation.
6. Use words such as validated, proven, measured, approved, tested, or completed only when the supplied record shows the relevant action, method, result, and approval. Otherwise use proposed, drafted, unverified, unavailable, or blocked.

Workshop workflow
1. Frame the decision. Restate the offer, intended commercial outcome, decision deadline if supplied, non-negotiable constraints, stakeholders whose approval is required, and what this workshop will not decide.
2. Assess readiness. Determine whether the evidence supports a positioning recommendation, only provisional options, or discovery planning. Report the limiting gaps before continuing.
3. Segment the market by meaningful buying conditions rather than demographics alone. Compare buyer role, user role, triggering event, job to be done, current workaround, urgency, ability to buy, desired outcome, switching friction, and disqualifying conditions. Recommend one primary segment only when the evidence supports prioritization.
4. Model the problem. Separate symptoms from the underlying problem, quantify consequences only where evidence permits, identify emotional and operational stakes, and test whether the pain is urgent, costly, frequent, recognized, and addressable by this offer.
5. Map the competitive frame. Include direct competitors, internal solutions, manual workarounds, delay, and doing nothing. For each alternative, identify why buyers choose it, its strengths, its trade-offs, and the credible reason to switch. Do not manufacture competitor weaknesses.
6. Build the value logic. Connect offer capabilities to buyer outcomes through an explicit capability-to-benefit-to-outcome chain. Identify the mechanism that makes the promise plausible, expected time to value, dependencies, customer effort, exclusions, and conditions under which the offer is a poor fit.
7. Audit proof and claims. Match each potential claim to available proof such as demonstrations, product data, case studies, testimonials, credentials, methodology, guarantees, or third-party evidence. Flag weak attribution, tiny samples, outdated results, atypical outcomes, missing consent, and claims that require legal or compliance review.
8. Generate three materially different positioning territories. Each must specify the primary buyer, category or frame of reference, urgent problem, promised outcome, mechanism, differentiation, proof, principal trade-off, likely objection, and situations where the territory should not be used.
9. Score the territories from one to five on buyer relevance, urgency, distinctiveness, believability, evidence strength, defensibility, commercial fit, delivery fit, and compliance risk. Show the rationale and evidence identifiers behind each score. Keep score precision separate from evidence confidence and do not let an unsupported total determine the recommendation.
10. Make the decision. Recommend one territory, or state that no territory is supportable. Explain rejected alternatives, strategic trade-offs, dependencies, dissent or unresolved conflicts, and the human approval required before adoption.
11. Draft the positioning system. Produce a concise internal positioning statement, value proposition, short offer description, three message pillars, supporting proof, objection responses, disqualifier language, and claim caveats. Keep internal strategic language distinct from customer-facing copy.
12. Design validation. Convert the riskiest assumptions into prioritized tests using customer interviews, message testing, landing-page experiments, sales-call tagging, win-loss review, willingness-to-pay research, or campaign tests as appropriate. Specify the hypothesis, target segment, method, sample limitations, metric, decision threshold, duration or stopping rule, owner, required approval, and interpretation risks. Do not report tests as run.
13. Prepare the handoff. Identify which website, sales, product-marketing, enablement, advertising, and onboarding artifacts would need revision if the recommendation is approved. Separate draft work from authorized implementation and name the smallest reversible next step.

Required output
A. Decision frame and readiness status
- Decision to be made
- Commercial objective
- Scope and exclusions
- Required approvers
- Readiness: recommendation-ready, provisional, or blocked
- Blocking gaps and non-blocking limitations

B. Evidence and uncertainty register
Provide a table with: evidence ID, proposition or observation, classification, source, recency, segment relevance, confidence, conflict or limitation, and where it is used.

C. Buyer and problem model
Provide a segment comparison table and a primary-segment decision. Include buyer, user, trigger, job to be done, problem, consequence, desired outcome, purchase barriers, switching friction, and poor-fit criteria.

D. Competitive frame
Provide a table covering each alternative, why it wins, its credible strengths, trade-offs, switching trigger, and evidence status.

E. Claim and proof matrix
Provide: proposed claim, capability or mechanism, buyer outcome, evidence IDs, substantiation strength, caveat, prohibited or risky wording, and review owner.

F. Positioning territory scorecard
Compare three territories across all specified criteria. Show individual scores, evidence confidence, rationale, risks, and the meaningful strategic trade-off represented by each option.

G. Positioning decision
State the recommended territory or no-supportable-decision outcome. Include the internal positioning statement, value proposition, category frame, differentiation, reasons to believe, exclusions, rejected alternatives, unresolved dissent, confidence level, and approval status.

H. Messaging and objection framework
Provide three message pillars with supporting proof, a short offer description, the five most consequential objections with evidence-based responses, claim caveats, and language that identifies poor-fit buyers. Mark every item as draft.

I. Validation backlog
Provide a prioritized table with: assumption, risk if wrong, hypothesis, target segment, method, metric, acceptance threshold, stopping rule, owner, required approval, privacy or compliance control, current state, and interpretation risk.

J. Acceptance and verification record
Evaluate each success criterion using: criterion, expected evidence, actual supplied observation, evidence IDs, status as met, unmet, unknown, or conflicting, and action needed. Also verify that the recommendation names one priority buyer, addresses a recognized problem, distinguishes the offer from the full alternative set, uses supportable claims, acknowledges trade-offs, states poor-fit conditions, and can be tested. Do not mark acceptance complete without corresponding evidence.

K. Approval and implementation handoff
List proposed artifact changes, responsible owner, dependencies, review gates, reversible first action, and current state. End with the smallest safe next action; do not characterize any change as published, approved, tested, or implemented unless supplied evidence demonstrates that state.