06 · Choose

Test a positioning against the alternatives customers actually consider

DECISIONS SUPPORTED

Which position is distinctive, credible and preferable to both the status quo and indirect alternatives?

  1. 01Choose a frame of reference
  2. 02Define comparison axes
  3. 03Test a differentiated space
  4. 04Document evidence of credibility

ORIGINAL ASSET

Positioning map

Compares several competitive spaces and measures the gap between the intended position and the evidence available.

INPUTSActorsAlternativesAxesPerceptionsEvidence
OUTPUTSOccupied spacesOpen spacesCredibilityTrade-offs

Compare the alternatives that compete for the decision

A position is not defined only against named competitors. It must also be compared with in-house solutions, familiar tools, manual work, adjacent providers and doing nothing. The frame of reference makes these alternatives explicit before a claim of differentiation is made.

  • Direct competitors
  • Indirect alternatives
  • Customer status quo
  • Frame of reference

Make the difference specific and testable

A useful difference describes a relevant criterion, the audience for which it matters and the evidence supporting it. A broad promise such as better, simpler or more innovative is not a position until it can be compared with a credible alternative on a stated axis.

  • Relevant criterion
  • Priority audience
  • Comparable alternative
  • Observable proof

Treat credibility as a condition, not a slogan

Evidence gaps should lead to a test, a narrower claim or a different position, rather than an unsupported assertion.

  • Available evidence
  • Missing evidence
  • Review condition
  • Possible adjustment

POSITIONING REVIEW

Fix the frame of reference before choosing a difference

Name the priority audience, buying situation, use case and alternatives that genuinely compete for the decision, including the status quo and indirect solutions. Select comparison axes from observable customer criteria rather than from internal vocabulary. Record the source, sample, date, scale and uncertainty behind every position. A perceptual map describes measured or declared perceptions; distance on the map does not by itself prove preference, causality, willingness to pay or future market share.

  • Priority audience
  • Credible alternatives
  • Observable axes
  • Perception limits

Make the intended position comparable, credible and reviewable.

Connect the promise to evidence and delivery economics

Translate the desired difference into a precise value proposition: customer outcome, relevant context, alternative displaced and evidence that the outcome matters. Distinguish stated preference, observed behaviour and causal proof. Then test whether the organisation can deliver the promise repeatedly at an acceptable cost, with the required capabilities and access. A white space is only an opportunity hypothesis until demand, credibility, economics and competitive response have been examined on the same perimeter.

  • Customer outcome
  • Proof of relevance
  • Delivery capability
  • Viable economics

Make the intended position comparable, credible and reviewable.

Choose a test, a threshold and a reopening rule

Compare keeping the current position, narrowing the target, changing the promise, strengthening the proof and withdrawing the claim. For the selected option, name the first reversible experiment, population, measure, success threshold and adverse signal. Preserve rejected alternatives and contradictory evidence in the decision record. Review the position when perceptions, alternatives, acquisition cost, conversion, retention or delivery quality cross the stated threshold rather than allowing a slogan to become permanent strategy.

  • Comparable options
  • Reversible experiment
  • Decision threshold
  • Review owner

GO FURTHER

Review conditions remain part of the decision.

01

Category

02

Value proposition

03

Choice criteria

04

Differentiation

05

Trade-offs

06

Repositioning

DECISION QUESTION