Turn customer evidence into a positioning brief with Claude
Build an internal positioning brief that names the buyer, alternative, supported difference, unknowns, proposed message, and next buyer check.
Build a positioning brief by choosing a buyer, naming what they use instead, and linking a supported product difference to that buyer’s job. Give Claude the evidence before asking for wording. The output is a short internal brief, an unapproved message proposal, and the next question to check with buyers.
Start with the decision and a small source pack
Define the product, market, and decision the brief covers. Choosing a buyer for a new homepage differs from explaining an established product to a new segment. Leave unresolved goals, audiences, and alternatives visible.
Gather only material that bears on that decision:
- Customer notes or permitted review excerpts showing the buyer’s role, job, current approach and difficulty. Keep the source, date and surrounding context.
- Current product information showing what works, on which plan, and any missing requirement that could rule a buyer out.
- Evidence about alternatives the buyer uses or seriously considers, including the current manual process. Keep competitor observations separate from assumptions.
For recurring work, a Claude Project can make uploaded knowledge and project instructions available across chats in that Project. The project setup lesson covers that arrangement. For an initial pass, you can instead paste permitted material directly into a chat. Keep approved messaging separate and label every proposed change.
Use this prompt for the synthesis:
Using only the material I provide, draft an internal positioning brief with: buyer and job; current alternative; supported product difference; value for that buyer; category hypothesis; excluded situations; unknowns; and the next buyer check. Cite the file and passage behind every factual statement. Mark unsupported statements “needs evidence,” preserve contradictions, and label the message proposal “unapproved.” Ask about missing product, market, buyer, or alternative scope before drafting.
Read every cited passage yourself. If buyer evidence is missing, keep the result as a hypothesis. Review mining can supply traceable customer language; direct conversations can address questions that reviews leave open.
Compare the alternatives in the buyer’s situation
Write down how the buyer completes the job today. An email thread or an internal process can be the relevant alternative even when your company tracks several software vendors. April Dunford’s positioning method starts with the status quo and shortlist competitors, then maps differentiated capabilities to customer value.
For each plausible buyer, have Claude connect a difficulty in the source material to a capability your product supports. Include the strongest reason that buyer might stay with their current approach. You are looking for a reason to choose the product that survives that comparison.
Keep the evidence types distinct. A product check can establish that a task displays an approver. A customer note can establish that one buyer struggles to identify approvers. Neither establishes faster delivery, willingness to pay or a market-wide preference. If the evidence shows no meaningful difference, record the next research question instead of strengthening the adjective.
Turn the evidence into a compact choice
The following inputs and completed brief are illustrative. They describe no real customer, product test or Claude run.
Suppose a creative agency’s operations lead coordinates client onboarding through email and a spreadsheet. In this particular workflow, each task shows neither the client approver nor an approval record. The product under consideration displays both beside each task. It does not support single sign-on, which a separate enterprise buying situation requires.
Those inputs suggest the following choice to investigate:
| Part of the brief | Proposed choice |
|---|---|
| Buyer and job | Agency operations leads coordinating client approvals during onboarding. |
| Current alternative | The described email and spreadsheet workflow. Other implementations may work differently. |
| Difference and value | The product displays an approver and approval record beside each task, so the lead can check ownership and the recorded decision there. |
| Category | Client-onboarding software, subject to checking whether buyers understand that description. |
| Excluded situation | A purchase requiring single sign-on, which this product does not provide. |
| Unknown | Whether approval tracking is important enough to justify changing the existing process. |
The agency choice has a link between a problem and a capability. The enterprise choice has an unmet requirement. That supports investigating the agency situation; it does not establish demand across all agencies.
A proposed message could be: “See the approver and approval record with each onboarding task.” A promise to reduce onboarding time would need measured outcomes. “The only tool with approval records” would need comparative evidence. Keep the narrow capability claim and its limited comparison.
Review the choice before approving the message
Read the brief with the people responsible for the product and customer relationships. Check that the cited passages support the exact buyer, capability and comparison. If sources disagree, keep the conflict visible and withhold the affected claim until you resolve it.
Then speak with buyers who match the situation. Ask them to show how they handle the job now, where difficulties occur, and what would make a change worth the effort. Show the proposed message and ask what they would expect the product to do. Record confusing wording, objections and evidence that the existing approach already works.
If buyers understand the message but do not care about the problem, revisit the positioning choice. If they care but infer a capability you do not offer, revise the wording. Use a simulated response only to rehearse the questions, never as buyer evidence.
The Product Marketing Alliance positioning guide treats the positioning statement as an internal guide to external messaging. Save your chosen brief with its owner, date and remaining questions. Approve public wording separately. Once approved, the battlecard feedback lesson explains how to use seller feedback to refine a sales artifact.
Keep the decision’s evidence current
Recheck the brief when a relevant product feature, competitor plan, or buyer finding changes. Update the dated source files and the affected wording together, then confirm that the next task uses the revised material. Keep the owner and unresolved questions in the brief so a later reviewer can tell what changed and what still needs evidence.
Frequently asked
What goes into a positioning brief?
Record the target buyer and job, the alternatives they use or consider, your supported difference, the value it could provide, and the product category. Include which situations the choice excludes, what remains unknown, and the next buyer check. Keep proposed messages separate from approved wording.
Can I start without customer interviews?
You can write a positioning hypothesis from available product and market evidence. Mark the missing buyer evidence and use it to decide what to investigate next. A working feature alone does not establish that a buyer values it enough to change their current approach.
What if a competitor does not mention the feature in its documentation?
Record the feature as unconfirmed. Omission from a documentation page does not establish that the product lacks it. Check the relevant documentation and plan before making a comparison, and withhold the comparative claim if the evidence remains insufficient.
Keep reading
All posts- September 14, 2026Analyze win-loss interviews with Claude and trace every theme back to the buyer's wordsCode a defined set of win-loss interviews with Claude: verbatim passages first, then themes with interview IDs, a stated denominator and the exceptions.
- September 14, 2026Plan a customer interview round that can change one product marketing decisionWrite the decision, recruit for the experience it needs, set the invitation and consent, keep the guide short, fix the note format, then review the gaps.
- September 14, 2026Write a launch brief whose claims, owners and metric can all be checkedTurn release facts, positioning and approved messaging into a dated launch brief: a source per claim, a contact per risk, one metric, open decisions listed.
- September 14, 2026Build a message hierarchy from a positioning decision, with the proof beside every lineTurn a positioning decision into a message-hierarchy file: an anchor, evidence-backed claims, audience variants, checked objections and change rules.
Turn the decision into a message hierarchy