competitor-analysis#

Use this skill to turn raw competitor information into decision-useful analysis.

Core rule:

The goal of competitor analysis is not to describe what others did. It is to solve our problem by borrowing others' experience.

When to use#

Trigger this skill when the task is to:

• write a competitor-analysis section in a report or memo
• compare products / companies / campaigns for strategic insight
• benchmark categories, leaders, challengers, substitutes, or avoidable cases
• analyze marketing campaigns, product positioning, product launch, or brand upgrade
• answer "what should we learn / avoid / do next"

Do not stop at information collection. The output must end with actionable conclusions.

Required workflow#

Follow this sequence:

1. Define the problem - What exact question are we trying to answer?
2. Define the competitor set - Why these objects, and what role does each one play?
3. Decompose the case - Facts → motives → effects
4. Extract the root variable - What actually drove success or failure?
5. Convert to action - What should we borrow, avoid, or do next?

If step 5 is weak, the analysis is incomplete.

Five questions you must answer#

Before finalizing, check whether the draft answers all five:

1. What problem are we solving?
2. Which information is actually useful for that problem?
3. Where did the information come from?
4. Is the analysis surface-level or root-cause level?
5. What concrete help does the conclusion provide for this project?

Competitor types#

Classify each analyzed object into one or more of these roles:

• Core competitor: highly overlaps with us in product, target users, positioning, budget, or category
• Benchmark competitor: stronger / larger / category-leading reference worth learning from
• Potential competitor: smaller but strategically interesting; may have sharper tactics or better product logic
• Substitute competitor: different category but solves the same higher-order need
• Avoidance competitor: negative case that shows what not to do

Do not create a wide list without role labels.

Three-layer decomposition#

For each important case, analyze in this order:

1) Fact layer — what happened?#

Capture concrete actions only:

• what was launched / changed / communicated
• timing and sequence
• channel / resource allocation
• execution structure

2) Motive layer — why did they do it?#

Explain the logic behind the actions:

• market / company / user background
• why this timing
• target outcome
• strategic path chosen
• why this method instead of another

3) Effect layer — what happened as a result?#

Look for:

• business result
• user cognition shift
• engagement / conversion / adoption signals
• success factor or failure reason
• the decisive variable

Always push past description. Ask: what was the main contradiction / main variable?

Output rule#

Every competitor-analysis section must end with three explicit buckets:

• What to borrow
• What to avoid
• What we should do next

If the user asks for a report section, prefer this output shape:

Suggested section structure#

1. Problem statement
2. Competitor map and role labels
3. Cross-case comparison
4. Deep dive by selected cases
5. Root insight / decisive variables
6. Recommendations for us

Scenario-specific frameworks#

Read the matching reference file before drafting:

• Marketing / campaign analysis → references/marketing.md
• Product positioning / category comparison → references/product-positioning.md
• Product launch / GTM / 0→1 or 1→10 → references/product-launch.md
• Brand upgrade / repositioning → references/brand-upgrade.md
• General method and review checklist → references/methodology.md

Writing standards#

• Lead with the problem, not with the competitor list.
• Prefer a small number of well-chosen cases over a big shallow inventory.
• Label evidence and inference separately when useful.
• Do not confuse “interesting action” with “relevant action”.
• Do not summarize surface phenomena without extracting implications.
• Keep conclusions sharp, short, and decision-oriented.

Good conclusion examples#

Good:

• "We should borrow competitor A's timing logic, but not its channel mix; their budget intensity is not replicable for us."
• "Competitor B succeeded less because of creativity and more because it matched a high-frequency scenario with credible RTB."
• "Competitor C is useful as an avoidance case: the launch failed because concept, target user, and channel rhythm were misaligned."

Bad:

• "Competitor A did social media and got good results."
• "Competitor B's campaign was creative and worth learning from."
• "There are many things we can reference."

Final self-check#

Before delivering, verify:

• Is the analysis tied to the user's actual business question?
• Are competitor roles clearly labeled?
• Did we move from facts to motives to effects?
• Did we identify a decisive variable?
• Does the output clearly say what we should borrow / avoid / do next?