A brand positioning template should help you examine that promise before writing a headline. Connect the category to the offer's actual capabilities and the customer situation where they may matter. Keep the evidence and open questions beside the proposed position.
This original fictional example compares two category choices for ClearCaption, a caption-checking service. It produces a provisional positioning record, not a claim that customers have validated the offer.
Write down what the offer actually does
ClearCaption's supplied service brief says it reviews caption/source-file consistency and supplies a discrepancy list. It does not store collections or edit images.
That gives the team a capability to discuss: checking whether a caption agrees with its supplied source file. It does not establish that the service is faster, cheaper, or better than an alternative. Those comparisons would need their own evidence.
The working target is a hypothesis: small collection teams reconciling captions before an exhibition. The possible value is fewer unresolved caption/source mismatches at handoff. There is no measured effect or customer research in this exercise.
April Dunford's positioning guide connects alternatives, differentiated capabilities, customer value, customer context, and market category. It explains how a category shapes expectations and why a positioning decision requires more than filling in a statement. Read the author's positioning guide.
Trace the position from evidence to open questions
| Part of the record | Provisional entry | Evidence or next question |
|---|---|---|
| Customer context | Small collection team preparing exhibition captions | Target hypothesis; who faces this problem and how do they describe it? |
| Alternatives | Manual spreadsheet checking or copyediting | Hypotheses; what would an actual buyer use without this service? |
| Capability | Caption/source-file consistency review with a discrepancy list | Supported by the fictional service brief; differentiation from alternatives unresearched |
| Potential value | Fewer unresolved caption/source mismatches before handoff | Value hypothesis; no promised reduction or customer result |
| Category | Caption consistency review service | Matches the supplied scope more closely than a storage platform |
The alternatives question matters. A company that looks adjacent in a web search may never appear in a buyer's decision. Until the team knows what customers actually do instead, the record should label its alternatives as provisional.
Likewise, a capability supported by the brief does not automatically become a unique advantage. Keep “we offer this” separate from “customers cannot get this elsewhere.”
Compare the two category choices
Category A: digital asset management platform. In this exercise, the proposed frame brings an expectation of searchable asset storage. That expectation conflicts with the brief: ClearCaption does not store collections.
Category B: caption consistency review service. This frame puts the offered review task in view and does not imply a collection-storage system. It is the closer scope match for the exercise, with customer understanding still to be investigated.
The comparison changes the draft description:
ClearCaption is a caption consistency review service for collection teams preparing exhibition handoffs. It checks captions against supplied source files and returns a discrepancy list for the team to review.
That is a scope-grounded working description. It does not claim a proven segment, a quantified benefit, or market leadership. A tagline can come later, once the team knows which context and value its intended buyers recognize.
Try the positioning record
Select each category to inspect the expectations attached to it and compare them with the exact offer brief. Follow the capability-to-value connection, then inspect the customer and alternative hypotheses behind it.
In the blank record, enter your actual offer, evidence, possible alternatives, customer context, and category choices. Use the expectation check to ask what each label might imply. Retain temporary review notes while switching views, and confirm before resetting them. The worksheet organizes the reasoning; it does not score a market winner.
Copy this prompt to work through your offer
Create a complete self-contained HTML brand-positioning review.
My offer and exact supported capabilities: [brief]. Excluded scope:
[details]. Customer-context hypothesis: [who/when]. Known alternatives
with sources: [facts, or mark unresearched]. Category candidates:
[labels]. Keep unverified differentiation/value/customer claims open.
Include a separate fictional ClearCaption case. Service reviews caption
and source-file consistency and supplies a discrepancy list; it does
not store collections or edit images. Target hypothesis: small collection
teams reconciling captions before exhibitions. Alternative hypotheses:
manual spreadsheet checking or copyediting; actual buyer research absent.
Value hypothesis: fewer unresolved caption/source mismatches at handoff,
without a measured effect or guarantee. Supplied brief supports offered
capability only, not superiority or uniqueness against alternatives.
Compare categoryA digital asset management platform with categoryB
caption consistency review service. Show storage/search expectations
attached to A in this exercise conflict with the supplied scope. B is
closer to scope, not market-validated. Trace alternative/capability/
potential value/customer/category with evidence or a named open question.
Keep positioning distinct from tagline writing. Provide category
comparison, evidence inspection, blank fields with missing-offer feedback,
temporary notes retained across views, and confirmed reset. No automatic
winner, fabricated research, best/fastest claim, or quantified improvement.
Use labeled keyboard-accessible controls, visible focus, system fonts
at least16px, and 360px layout without horizontal scrolling. Inline
CSS/JavaScript, no dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Fix the expectation before polishing the line
Read the category aloud with the person responsible for delivering the service. Ask what a buyer could reasonably expect that the team would have to explain away. In NOS, revise the prepared HTML's visible category and scope sentence together. For ClearCaption, keeping “review service” beside the discrepancy-list deliverable is more useful than finding a punchier phrase for a platform it does not offer.