Market & competitor analysis · Demand, positioning, messaging
Most competitor research produces a document nobody uses: a grid of features and a screenshot of everyone’s homepage.
This work starts from the decision you need to make — enter, reposition, price, or respond — and produces the evidence that decision requires.
Experience includes
Research is expensive when it is general and cheap when it is aimed at a specific decision.
How buyers actually search — the language, the intent distribution and the volume behind each — rather than the terms you would use internally.
Who you actually compete with in the buyer’s mind, which is often not who you compete with in the industry.
What each competitor claims, what they prove, and where the claims overlap so heavily that none of them register.
Where competitors invest, which terms they defend, and what that reveals about their economics.
Segments, messages and channels that are under-served — with an honest note on why, since some gaps are empty for good reason.
What to say differently, written as usable sentences rather than as a recommendation to “differentiate”.
Market entry decisions made on demand evidence rather than on optimism.
Messaging that distinguishes you in the places buyers actually compare.
Channel and budget decisions informed by what the competition is defending.
Analysis reduces uncertainty. It does not remove it, and I will not present it as if it does.
01
Input: the choice you are trying to make.
Output: a scope aimed at that, not at everything.
02
Action: search behaviour, volume and intent in the target market.
Output: the shape of the opportunity.
03
Action: claims, proof, paid and organic footprint, pricing signals.
Output: a positioning map.
04
Action: find under-served intent and test whether the gap is real.
Output: options with reasoning.
05
Action: convert findings into messaging and channel decisions.
Output: something the team can act on.
The exciting part of competitive research is finding a segment nobody is addressing. The useful part is establishing whether it is unaddressed because it was missed, or because someone already tried it and it did not work.
So every gap comes with an assessment of why it exists. That is the difference between research that informs a decision and research that flatters one already made.
Search data, ad platform auction data, competitor sites and public material. Where a figure is an estimate rather than a measurement, it is labelled as one.
Yes. Note that keyword tools return database-specific figures, so a US or Gulf question needs the corresponding database — Egyptian data does not describe those markets.
It is a snapshot and it is dated as such. Competitive positions move; a document presented as permanent is misleading.
Publicly available pricing and its positioning implications. Not a pricing strategy engagement, which needs cost and elasticity data.
If you are about to commit budget to a market or a message, the evidence is cheaper than the mistake.