Market

---
name: market
description: >
  Activate for: market, market size, TAM SAM SOM, competitive analysis,
  competitive landscape, competitors, competition, who else does this,
  market research, industry research, market sizing, bottom-up model,
  addressable market, serviceable market, competitive intelligence,
  how big is the market, who are my competitors, market positioning,
  differentiation, moat, unfair advantage, why us not them, SWOT.
  NOT for: go-to-market strategy (use gtm), pitch deck (use pitch),
  unit economics (use financials).
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: Panaversity
  version: "1.0"
  plugin-commands: "/market"
---

## CONTEXT LOADING

Before executing, check for `innov.local.md` in the working directory.
If found, extract:

- venture: name, stage, type, problem_statement, target_customer, unfair_advantage
- competitive_landscape: direct_competitors, indirect_alternatives, differentiation, moat_building
- financial_model: unit_economics (for value capture validation)
- customer_profiles: personas, pains

If `innov.local.md` is not found:
Continue with conversation context. After first substantive output, prompt:
"I'm working without your venture context. Run Exercise 8 from Chapter 40
to build innov.local.md -- it will make every subsequent output specific
to your venture rather than generic."

## STAGE-AWARE CALIBRATION

Check venture.stage and calibrate:

- IDEA: Market research is useful at any stage -- understanding the landscape helps focus ideation.
- DISCOVERY: Market research is valuable alongside customer discovery.
- VALIDATION: Market research should inform your positioning and pricing assumptions.
- MVP: Market intelligence helps you position against competitors your customers mention.
- GROWTH: This is your focus stage for competitive intelligence and market expansion analysis.

## DLA PROGRESSION CHECK

No skip warning needed -- market intelligence is valuable at all stages.
If venture has no competitive_landscape in innov.local.md:
"You have no competitive landscape documented. Understanding your
competitors and alternatives is critical for positioning. Even at
the earliest stage, know what customers use today."

## MARKET INTELLIGENCE WORKFLOW

### Task Types

TYPE 1: COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE SCAN
  Input: Product/problem area; known competitors; target segment
  Output: Competitor profiles (positioning, pricing, strengths, weaknesses, threat level)
          + strategic recommendation

TYPE 2: MARKET SIZING (BOTTOM-UP)
  Input: Target segment definition; pricing; usage data from pilots
  Output: TAM / SAM / SOM with bottom-up methodology + value capture validation

TYPE 3: DIFFERENTIATION MAP
  Input: Competitor list; our value proposition
  Output: Positioning map; where we win; where we lose; defensibility assessment

TYPE 4: MARKET TIMING ANALYSIS
  Input: Problem area
  Output: "Why now?" -- forces making this the right time (tech, regulation, behaviour, cost)

TYPE 5: MOAT ASSESSMENT
  Input: Venture context
  Output: Current moats; moats being built; how defensible each is; what to invest in

### Competitive Intelligence Output Structure

```
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE -- [Product Area]
Date: [Date] | Segment: [Target segment]
================================================================
DIRECT COMPETITORS (solving the same problem for the same customer):

  [Competitor Name]
  Positioning:      [How they describe themselves; who they target]
  Pricing:          [If available; or "undisclosed -- estimated $X based on...]
  Strengths vs. us: [Where they are genuinely stronger]
  Weaknesses vs. us: [Where we have an advantage]
  Threat level:     HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
  Threat reason:    [Specific -- funding, distribution, brand, feature parity]

  [Repeat for each direct competitor -- typically 3-6]

INDIRECT ALTERNATIVES (solving the problem differently):

  [Alternative -- could be "Excel + manual process" or an adjacent tool]
  Why customers use it: [Inertia / price / familiarity / integration]
  Our advantage:        [Specific -- why we win against this alternative]

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION:
  Where to win:   [The specific customer/use case where we have clear advantage]
  Where to avoid: [Segments where we are outgunned by incumbents]
  Differentiation to defend: [The one claim we must never let a competitor match]
================================================================
```

### Bottom-Up Market Sizing Method

Step 1 -- COUNT the customers:
  How many organisations in your target segment exist in your geography?
  Source: business registries, census data, industry associations, LinkedIn counts

Step 2 -- QUALIFY the reachable subset:
  Of those, how many meet the ICP criteria?

Step 3 -- PRICE the opportunity:
  What does one customer pay per year? (from unit economics)

Step 4 -- CALCULATE:
  TAM = Total addressable count x annual price (everyone who has the problem, globally)
  SAM = Reachable count in your geography x annual price (companies you could sell to)
  SOM = Your 3-5 year capture target x annual price (1-5% of SAM is typical)

Step 5 -- VALIDATE the value capture ratio:
  SaaS rule of thumb: your price should be <10% of the value you deliver.
  If value delivered = $10,000/year and you charge $1,000/year: healthy.
  If you charge $8,000/year: customers will eventually find alternatives.

### Moat Assessment Framework

MOAT TYPE 1 -- DATA:
  Do you accumulate data that gets more valuable with use?
  Durability: HIGH -- hard to replicate without time and customers

MOAT TYPE 2 -- SWITCHING COSTS:
  How painful is it for a customer to switch to a competitor?
  Durability: MEDIUM-HIGH -- increases with tenure

MOAT TYPE 3 -- NETWORK EFFECTS:
  Does the product get more valuable as more people use it?
  Durability: HIGH -- but only true network effects count

MOAT TYPE 4 -- BRAND:
  Do customers trust you more than alternatives by reputation alone?
  Durability: MEDIUM -- can be built over 5+ years; fragile early

MOAT TYPE 5 -- REGULATORY / COMPLIANCE:
  Are you certified or approved in ways that competitors are not?
  Durability: MEDIUM -- regulatory moats can be matched; but slow

MOAT TYPE 6 -- DISTRIBUTION:
  Do you have access to customers that competitors cannot easily reach?
  Durability: MEDIUM -- partnerships can change

## FINANCIAL REASONING STANDARD

For market sizing and value capture validation:
- Always use bottom-up methodology, not top-down analyst TAM
- Validate value capture ratio: price should be <10% of value delivered
- Cross-reference market size with unit economics from /financials
- If market size relies on pricing assumptions, flag the dependency

## ASSUMPTION TRACKING

After any market output:
- Surface any market or competitive assumption that changed
- Propose innov.local.md competitive_landscape updates
- Identify the most critical untested market assumption
- Always distinguish between ASSUMED, ANECDOTAL, and VALIDATED evidence

## NEVER DO THESE

- NEVER claim "no direct competition" -- if there is genuinely no competition,
  there is likely no market; or you have not looked hard enough
- NEVER use top-down analyst TAM figures without a bottom-up sanity check
- NEVER describe a competitor only in terms of their weaknesses --
  investors will have heard of them; describe their real strengths honestly,
  then explain why you win anyway
- NEVER claim a moat you do not yet have -- describe moats you are building,
  not moats you aspire to

ALL OUTPUTS REQUIRE REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL BEFORE USE IN BUSINESS DECISIONS.