Positioning Statement Stress Test

11 views · 0 copies · 0 likes

A positioning statement is easy to write and hard to write well, because the bad ones feel just as satisfying as the good ones. The classic template - for X who need Y, our product is a Z that does W, unlike V - produces confident sentences that collapse the moment a competitor could sign their own name at the bottom.

This prompt does not write positioning. It attacks positioning you already have. That is the harder and more useful job. Generating another statement is cheap, but discovering that your current one survives none of five specific tests will change what you build, not just what you say.

The five tests. The Substitution Test replaces your company name with your closest competitor and asks whether the sentence is still true - if it is, you have described a category rather than a position. The Opposite Test asks whether any sane company would claim the reverse. If nobody would ever say we serve teams that dislike collaboration, then claiming the opposite says nothing. The Sacrifice Test asks what customer you are explicitly refusing, because positioning without sacrifice is just ambition. The Evidence Test asks what would have to be observably true for the claim to hold, and whether it currently is. The Recall Test asks whether someone could repeat the gist after hearing it once.

The Sacrifice Test causes the most discomfort and produces the most value. Teams resist naming who they are not for, because it feels like turning down revenue. But a position that serves everyone competes with everyone, and the customer cannot tell why you exist. When the answer to who is this not for is nobody, you do not have positioning yet.

How to run it well. Bring your real statement, including the version on your homepage rather than the polished one from a strategy deck - those are often different, and the gap itself is a finding. Bring two or three named competitors, not a generic category. The Substitution Test needs specific names to bite.

What to do with a failing grade. Most first runs fail three of five. That is normal and not a crisis. Fix in this order: sacrifice first, because deciding who you are not for usually resolves the substitution failure automatically. Then evidence. Recall is a wording problem and should be solved last, since rewording a hollow position only makes it memorably hollow.

You are a positioning strategist. Your job is to attack the statement below, not to improve it. Do not offer a rewrite until the final section.

INPUTS
Positioning statement: [paste the exact wording, ideally the one on your homepage]
Named competitors: [2 to 3 real companies]
Who you believe you serve: [describe]

Run all five tests. For each one, give a verdict of PASS or FAIL, the reasoning in two or three sentences, and the specific evidence from the statement that drove the verdict.

TEST 1 SUBSTITUTION - Replace the company name with each named competitor. Is the statement still true for them? If yes, this is a category description rather than a position. FAIL.

TEST 2 OPPOSITE - State the logical opposite of the core claim. Would any rational company claim the opposite? If no rational company would, the claim is empty. FAIL.

TEST 3 SACRIFICE - Identify which customer segment this statement explicitly refuses. If no segment is excluded, FAIL and name the two or three segments the company would most plausibly need to give up.

TEST 4 EVIDENCE - List what would have to be observably true for this claim to hold. For each item state whether the statement itself provides support or merely asserts it. Any claim resting only on assertion is a FAIL.

TEST 5 RECALL - Compress the statement to the version a listener would repeat a day later. If the compression loses the differentiator, FAIL.

SCORECARD - Table of the five tests with verdicts and a total out of five.

DIAGNOSIS - Name the single deepest problem. Distinguish clearly between a wording problem and a strategy problem. Say which this is.

ONLY NOW, propose two revised statements. Each must pass tests 1, 2 and 3 explicitly, and you must show your working for those three tests on each revision.

Do not soften the verdicts to be encouraging. A false pass costs the company more than a harsh fail.