Competitive Intelligence Framework

경쟁사 분석(Competitor Analysis)

당신은 경쟁 시장 리서치를 수행하는 **시니어 프로덕트 스트래티지스트**입니다. **[Insert industry or problem area]**에서 사용자가 **[Insert core feature or benefit]**을 할 수 있도록 돕는 스타트업을 위한 종합 경쟁사 분석을 수행해주세요.

---

## 분석 입력

| 항목 | 상세 |
|---|---|
| **우리 제품 콘셉트** | {{product_concept}} |
| **타깃 시장** | {{target_market}} |
| **알려진 경쟁사** | {{known_competitors}} (발견하는 곳을 추가) |

---

## 산출물

### 1. 경쟁사 프로필 (Top 5)
각 경쟁사에 대해 다음 프로필 작성:

| 차원 | 상세 |
|---|---|
| **회사 & 제품** | 이름, 창업 연도, 펀딩 단계, 직원 수 |
| **고유 가치 제안(UVP)** | 한 문장 핵심 피치 |
| **가격 모델** | Free / freemium / 유료 티어와 구체적 가격 |
| **타깃 청중** | 주요 ICP와 시장 세그먼트 |
| **핵심 강점** | 진짜 경쟁 우위 2~3개 |
| **핵심 약점** | 우리가 공략할 수 있는 취약점 2~3개 |
| **유통 전략** | 사용자 획득 방법 (PLG, 세일즈 주도, 파트너십, 콘텐츠) |
| **최근 행보** | 지난 6개월: 제품 런칭, 피벗, 펀딩 라운드, 핵심 채용 |

### 2. 기능 비교 매트릭스
각 역량을 4점 척도로 평가:

| 기능 / 역량 | 우리 제품 | 경쟁사 A | 경쟁사 B | 경쟁사 C | 경쟁사 D | 경쟁사 E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Core feature 1] | -- | strong / adequate / weak / missing | | | | |
| [Core feature 2] | -- | | | | | |
| [Differentiator 1] | -- | | | | | |
| 가격 유연성 | -- | | | | | |
| 개발자 경험 / API | -- | | | | | |
| 고객 지원 품질 | -- | | | | | |

### 3. 경쟁 포지셔닝 맵
우리 시장에서 가장 전략적으로 관련된 두 차원을 사용해 2x2 매트릭스를 만들기. 흔한 축 페어:
- 가격 vs 기능 깊이
- SMB vs 엔터프라이즈 초점
- 셀프서브(self-serve) vs 세일즈 주도
- 수평적 vs 수직적 특화

모든 경쟁사를 배치하고, 우리 제품이 이길 수 있는 **화이트 스페이스를 명시적으로 식별**하세요.

### 4. 위협 평가

| 경쟁사 | 위협 수준(High/Med/Low) | 1차 위협 벡터 | 우리의 방어 우위 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 경쟁사 A | | | |
| 경쟁사 B | | | |
| 경쟁사 C | | | |

### 5. 전략적 권고

#### 시장 트렌드 (향후 12~18개월)
- 경쟁 구도를 재편할 핵심 트렌드 3개

#### 모트(Moat) 분석
- **복제하기 가장 어려운** 어떤 경쟁 모트를 만들 수 있는가?
- 우리 시장에 맞게 모트 유형 순위: 네트워크 효과 > 데이터 > 전환 비용 > 브랜드 > IP

#### 차별화 액션 Top 3
각 권고에 대해:
1. **무엇:** 취할 구체적 행동
2. **왜:** 어떤 경쟁 격차를 공략하는지
3. **타임라인:** 언제 실행 (지금 / 다음 분기 / 6개월 이상)
4. **예상 임팩트:** 우리 포지셔닝을 어떻게 이동시키는가

---

**형식:** 발견을 임원이 바로 읽을 수 있는 형식으로 제시하되, 상단에 경영진 요약(최대 5개 불릿)을 두세요.

Conduct a competitive UX teardown

You are a UX analyst running a teardown of {{competitor_product}}'s {{specific_flow_or_feature}}. Our equivalent: {{our_flow}}.

## Step 1 — Job reconstruction
From user perspective, what job is this flow doing?
- Functional job
- Emotional job
- Social job

## Step 2 — Information architecture
- How is content organized (hierarchy, grouping)?
- Navigation structure (tabs, menus, contextual actions)?
- Primary action vs. secondary actions?
- Scale signal (does it handle 10 items the same as 1000)?

## Step 3 — Friction audit
For each step:
- Cognitive load (decision points, information density)
- Physical load (clicks, keystrokes)
- Wait time (loading, rendering)
- Error recovery

## Step 4 — Differentiation map
Compare their approach to ours:
| Dimension | Them | Us | Who wins | Why |
|-----------|------|----|---------|-----|

## Step 5 — Response options
Rank:
- Ignore (their approach is worse or they're not a real threat)
- Close the gap (match on 1-2 critical axes)
- Leapfrog (ship something structurally better)
- Differentiate (lean into our axes they can't easily replicate)

## Output
1. Job reconstruction
2. Friction comparison
3. Differentiation map
4. Recommended response with rationale
5. The one thing they're doing we should steal outright — and the one thing we explicitly won't copy

Map your product's competitive positioning on a Kiviat chart

You are a competitive analyst building a Kiviat positioning chart for {{product_name}} vs. {{primary_competitor}} and {{secondary_competitor}}. Target buyer persona: {{buyer_persona}}.

## Step 1 — Pick 6-8 axes buyers actually decide on
Rules: each axis must (1) appear in buyer evaluation language, (2) be scoreable 1-5 with evidence, (3) allow meaningful differentiation. Reject vanity axes like "innovation" or "ease of use" unless operationalized.

## Step 2 — Score with evidence
| Axis | Us (1-5) | {{primary_competitor}} | {{secondary_competitor}} | Evidence source |
|------|----------|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
| ... | | | | G2/buyer call/benchmark test |

## Step 3 — Shape analysis
1. Where we are spike-shaped (1-2 axes >4, others ~2-3)
2. Where we are flat (avg 3 across all axes)
3. The one axis where the competitor has a spike we cannot match — and whether to reposition or neutralize

## Step 4 — Positioning narrative
Draft a 100-word positioning statement for {{buyer_persona}} that leads with the spike, names the one honest weakness, and anchors on the "why now" decision trigger.

## Output
1. Filled axes with evidence
2. Spider chart description (which axes spike for us vs competitors)
3. Positioning paragraph
4. The one axis to invest in next quarter and the cost/outcome rationale

Design a moat analysis for your product's defensibility

You are a product strategist helping me write a moat analysis for {{product_name}}. Our stage: {{stage_and_scale}}. Competitor we are most worried about: {{competitor}}.

## Seven moat archetypes — score each 0-3
| Archetype | Definition | Our score (0-3) | Evidence | Gap vs competitor |
|-----------|-----------|-----------------|----------|-------------------|
| Scale economics | Unit costs drop as we grow | | | |
| Network effects | Value grows with users | | | |
| Switching costs | Customers lose data/workflow on leaving | | | |
| Brand | Buyers default to us even at parity | | | |
| Regulatory / licensing | Legal barrier to entry | | | |
| Embedded data / ML loop | Data we have, they can't replicate | | | |
| Proprietary tech / IP | Algorithm/patent advantage | | | |

## Output
1. Filled-in table with evidence (not assertions)
2. Top 2 moats to invest in (and what we'd stop doing to fund them)
3. The one moat a competitor is closest to replicating and the 90-day shore-up plan
4. The narrative we use with the board: 1 paragraph, no more than 120 words

Be specific. "Our brand is strong" is not evidence — cite NPS, unaided recall, or customer logo retention.

AI Competitive Monitoring Report

You are a competitive intelligence analyst for a product team. Generate a comprehensive competitive monitoring report.

## My Product
- **Product name:** {{product_name}}
- **Category:** {{product_category}}
- **Key competitors:** {{competitor_1, competitor_2, competitor_3}}
- **Reporting period:** {{last_week | last_month | last_quarter}}

## Research & Report

### 1. Competitor Activity Summary
| Competitor | Recent Launches | Pricing Changes | Hiring Signals | Funding/M&A |
|-----------|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------|
| {{competitor_1}} | | | | |
| {{competitor_2}} | | | | |
| {{competitor_3}} | | | | |

### 2. Feature Gap Analysis (Updated)
| Feature | Us | Comp 1 | Comp 2 | Comp 3 | Priority |
|---------|-----|--------|--------|--------|----------|
| | ✓/✗/Partial | | | | |

### 3. Threat Assessment
| Threat | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|--------|-----------|--------|------------|
| | High/Med/Low | | |

### 4. Opportunity Signals
[New gaps or weaknesses in competitors we can exploit]

### 5. Key Takeaways for Product Roadmap
1. [How should this intel change our priorities?]
2. [What should we accelerate?]
3. [What new threat should we monitor?]