技能创建器
skill-creator
创建、改进和评估自定义技能,把专业流程转化为可重复使用的 AI 能力。
planning-market-analysis【数据与研究】Use this skill when the user says 'market analysis', 'competitive analysis', 'market research', 'TAM SAM SOM', 'market sizing', 'competitor research', 'market landscape', 'industry analysis'. Produce market sizing, competitor analysis, SWOT, and differentiation strategy. Do NOT use for: financial projections or business plan writing.
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Produce data-driven market and competitive analyses to inform product strategy. Covers TAM/SAM/SOM sizing, direct and indirect competitor comparison, SWOT analysis, and differentiation positioning.
Good market analysis separates successful product strategies from guesswork. It answers four essential questions: how big is the opportunity (market sizing), who else is chasing it (competitor analysis), what are our unique advantages (SWOT and moat), and what trends will reshape the market in the next 2-3 years (trend analysis). This skill produces a structured report with sourced data, comparative matrices, and actionable positioning recommendations. The output is usable for strategic planning, investor pitches, and product roadmap prioritization.
Is this for an investor pitch or fundraising?
|-- YES --> Full analysis: TAM/SAM/SOM, 10+ competitors, SWOT, trends
|-- NO --> Is this for internal product strategy?
|-- YES --> Medium analysis: TAM/SAM/SOM, 5-7 competitors, SWOT, trends
|-- NO --> Light analysis: TAM only, 3-5 competitors, SWOT
Do you have access to paid analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester, IDC)?
|-- YES --> Top-down TAM using analyst data, validated bottom-up
|-- NO --> Bottom-up TAM using unit economics, benchmark against public companies
Is your market mature or emerging?
|-- MATURE --> Focus on market share analysis and competitive differentiation
|-- EMERGING --> Focus on market creation timeline and category leadership
What is the competitive landscape?
|-- MANY DIRECT COMPETITORS --> Differentiation strategy, positioning map, feature matrix
|-- FEW DIRECT COMPETITORS --> Look for indirect competitors and adjacent substitutes
|-- NO DIRECT COMPETITORS --> Validate: are we creating a new category or missing existing alternatives?
"market analysis", "competitive analysis", "market research", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "competitor research", "market landscape", "industry analysis"
Market analysis report covering TAM/SAM/SOM sizing, competitive feature matrix, SWOT profiles, market trends, and positioning map.
TAM/SAM/SOM calculated using both methods with reconciled numbers. Minimum 5 competitors analyzed. SWOT analysis complete for your product and top 3 competitors. Positioning map plotted with clear differentiation axis. At least 3 market trends identified with directional assessment.
3000 tokens
Calculate TAM, SAM, SOM using two independent methods and reconcile.
Top-down approach: Start with an industry analyst TAM figure, then apply percentage filters for your segment, region, and customer profile. Cite specific sources (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, Statista).
Bottom-up approach: Start with your unit economics and multiply by the number of potential customers, then apply expected conversion rates. More credible for early-stage companies because it ties to real customer data.
Reconciliation: The two methods should produce numbers within 2x of each other. If they diverge more, revisit your assumptions.
Market sizing template:
## Market Sizing
### Top-Down
TAM = ${number} ({source}, {year})
SAM = TAM * {segment %} * {region %} = ${number}
SOM = SAM * {capture %} = ${number}
### Bottom-Up
SOM = ${price/yr} * {potential customers} * {expected conversion %} = ${number}
SAM = SOM * {inverse capture %} = ${number}
TAM = SAM * {inverse segment %} / {inverse region %} = ${number}
### Reconciled
TAM: ~${number}
SAM: ~${number}
SOM: ~${number}
Segment competitors into direct and indirect.
Direct competitors: Same problem, same solution category (e.g., Slack vs Teams). Indirect competitors: Same problem, different solution (e.g., Slack vs email). "Do nothing": The status quo — always a competitor.
For each competitor, research:
Competitor analysis template:
### {Competitor Name}
**Category:** Direct / Indirect
**Target customer:** {description}
**Pricing:** ${amount}/mo, {model}
**Estimated share:** {X}% of market
**Funding:** ${total}, {stage}
**Strengths:**
- {strength}
- {strength}
**Weaknesses:**
- {weakness}
- {weakness}
**Recent moves:** {acquisitions, partnerships, pivots}
For your product and each top competitor: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.
SWOT cross-reference:
SWOT quality criteria:
Categorize trends into four buckets:
Technology shifts: AI/ML adoption, cloud migration, new regulation, platform changes.
Regulatory changes: GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA updates, industry-specific regulation, trade policy.
Consumer/buyer behavior: Remote work, sustainability preferences, channel shift, generational changes.
Competitive dynamics: Consolidation, new entrants, partnership ecosystems, pricing pressure.
Trend assessment template:
### {Trend Name}
**Category:** {Technology / Regulatory / Behavior / Competition}
**Direction:** ↗ Growing / → Stable / ↘ Declining
**Impact on us:** Positive / Negative / Mixed
**Timeframe:** {Near-term / Medium-term / Long-term}
**Our response:** {What we should do about it}
Synthesize findings into:
Positioning map rules:
When: Fundraising, strategic planning, or market entry decision Process: All sections — TAM/SAM/SOM (2 methods), 10+ competitors, SWOT for top 5, trends (4+), positioning map, differentiation strategy, risks to market position. Takes 2-4 weeks with dedicated research. Output: Comprehensive report ready for investors or board.
When: Need rapid competitive intelligence for a roadmap decision Process: Light analysis — 5-7 competitors, feature comparison matrix, positioning map only. No formal TAM/SAM/SOM. Takes 2-3 days. Output: Competitive snapshot for internal decision-making.
When: Early-stage idea validation, pre-product Process: Focus on TAM/SAM/SOM (bottom-up heavy), competitive landscape confirmation (are there really no competitors?), and customer willingness to pay. No deep SWOT or trends. Output: 2-page brief validating market opportunity size.
When: Need to track competitors over time Process: Set up tracking for competitor releases, pricing changes, funding announcements. Monthly competitive brief with any changes since last report. Quarterly full refresh. Output: Monthly bulletin + quarterly deep dive.
Identify risks in four categories that could invalidate market analysis assumptions:
Demand risk: Market smaller than estimated, customers don't perceive the problem, willingness to pay lower than assumed. Mitigation: validate demand through pre-orders, waitlists, or landing page conversion before building. Use problem interviews to confirm pain point severity.
Competitive risk: New entrants emerge, existing competitors respond aggressively, substitute solutions improve. Mitigation: scenario plan competitive responses. Identify defensible moat elements (network effects, data, switching costs, IP) and their durability.
Timing risk: Market not ready (too early), window closing (too late), regulatory changes pending. Mitigation: map technology adoption lifecycle. Identify early adopter segment vs mainstream market readiness. Monitor regulatory landscape quarterly.
Execution risk: Cannot build the product at the cost required, cannot reach customers through planned channels, cannot achieve unit economics needed. Mitigation: validate technical feasibility before committing to market assumptions. Build bottom-up TAM based on actual unit economics, not aspirational targets.
Risk: {description}
Category: {Demand / Competitive / Timing / Execution}
Probability: {Low / Medium / High}
Impact: {Low / Medium / High}
Mitigation: {what we can do}
Trigger: {what would indicate this risk is materializing}
Using the largest possible market definition without considering realistic serviceable segments. "We are in the $100B healthcare market" when you make a scheduling tool for dental offices. Anti-pattern signal: SAM is > 50% of TAM.
Selecting data that supports the desired outcome and ignoring contrary signals. Every market analysis should include a "risks to our thesis" section. Anti-pattern signal: all data points are positive.
Treating the market as fixed when competitors are entering, merging, and exiting. An analysis that is 6 months old may already be outdated. Anti-pattern signal: no date on the analysis.
Focusing only on direct competitors while adjacent solutions eat your market. Slack's indirect competitor was email, not just Teams. Anti-pattern signal: competitor list has only direct competitors.
A SWOT analysis that lists 7 strengths, 5 opportunities, 4 threats, and 0 weaknesses is not credible. Every organization has weaknesses. Anti-pattern signal: empty Weaknesses quadrant.
Believing the product with the most features wins. Customers choose based on the job they need done, not feature count. Anti-pattern signal: feature matrix longer than the differentiation section.
Listing differentiators that are not actually different. "We have better customer support" — every company claims this. True differentiators are measurable: "We respond to support tickets in under 2 hours during business hours."
# Market Analysis: {Market Name}
## Executive Summary
{1-2 paragraph summary of findings}
## Market Sizing
{TAM/SAM/SOM with both methods}
## Competitive Landscape
{Overview of competitors, segmented by direct/indirect}
## Feature Comparison Matrix
{Matrix with features x competitors}
## SWOT Analysis
{Your SWOT + top 3 competitors' SWOT}
## Market Trends
{4-6 trends with directional assessment}
## Positioning
{Positioning map + differentiation strategy}
## Risks
{Risks to market position and mitigation}
| Feature | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Feature 1 | ✅ Native | ✅ Native | ⚠️ Plugin | ❌ Missing |
| Core Feature 2 | ✅ Native | ⚠️ Limited | ❌ Missing | ✅ Native |
| Pricing | $10/mo | $15/mo | Free | $8/mo |
| Integration X | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️ |
| Mobile App | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Metric | Target | How to Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Data source quality | > 80% sourced from primary or respected secondary sources | Source audit |
| TAM reconciliation | Top-down and bottom-up within 2x | Compare both methods |
| Competitor coverage | Top 5-7 competitors analyzed | Count |
| SWOT completeness | No empty quadrants | Quadrant audit |
| Analysis freshness | < 6 months old | Date check |
Top-Down:
TAM = $5B (Gartner 2024)
SAM = $5B x 60% (US+EU) x 40% (SaaS) = $1.2B
SOM = $1.2B x 8% (5yr capture) = $96M
Bottom-Up:
SOM = $420/yr x 200,000 customers x 85% = $71.4M
SAM = $71.4M x 5 = $357M
TAM = $357M x 10 = $3.57B
Reconciled: TAM ~$4.2B, SAM ~$850M, SOM ~$85M
| Your SWOT | Competitor SWOT | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Strength → | Their Weakness | Exploit — invest in this area |
| Opportunity → | Their Threat | Defend — protect this position |
| Weakness → | Their Strength | Mitigate — close the gap |
| Threat → | Their Opportunity | Monitor — prepare response |
| Force | Assessment | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Threat of new entrants | High/Med/Low | Barrier analysis |
| Supplier power | High/Med/Low | Dependency risk |
| Buyer power | High/Med/Low | Pricing strategy |
| Threat of substitutes | High/Med/Low | Indirect competition |
| Competitive rivalry | High/Med/Low | Differentiation need |
| Framework | Focus | Output | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAM/SAM/SOM | Market opportunity sizing | Numerical estimate | Investor pitches, strategy |
| SWOT | Internal + external factors | Qualitative matrix | Strategy workshops |
| Porter's Five Forces | Industry structure | Competitive pressure assessment | Market entry decisions |
| BCG Matrix | Portfolio positioning | 2x2 grid | Multi-product prioritization |
| Blue Ocean Strategy | New market creation | Strategy canvas | Innovation strategy |
What is the competitor's move?
|-- Price cut --> Do they have cost advantage?
| |-- YES --> Match or beat price only if we have similar costs
| |-- NO --> Compete on value, not price (differentiate)
|-- New feature launch --> Is the feature core to their value prop?
| |-- YES --> How quickly can we respond? (3mo / 6mo / 12mo)
| |-- NO --> Monitor, do not react immediately
|-- Market expansion --> Does it directly compete for our customers?
| |-- YES --> Accelerate retention efforts + differentiation
| |-- NO --> No response needed, monitor
|-- Acquisition/partnership --> Does it create a stronger competitor?
|-- YES --> Assess combined entity's capabilities; consider own M&A
|-- NO --> Monitor for indirect effects
Is the market growing (>10% YoY)?
|-- YES --> Enter now with investment in growth
|-- NO --> Is it a mature market with stable margins?
|-- YES --> Enter only with differentiation or cost advantage
|-- NO --> Declining market → Do not enter unless exit strategy clear
Is there an existing competitor with >40% market share?
|-- YES --> Can we target an underserved segment?
| |-- YES --> Enter with niche focus
| |-- NO --> Consider adjacent market instead
|-- NO --> Can we achieve first-mover advantage?
|-- YES --> Enter fast with brand-building investment
|-- NO --> Enter with strong differentiation
Do we have existing distribution channels?
|-- YES --> Lower entry barrier, leverage existing relationships
|-- NO --> Higher entry cost, include channel-building in investment plan
What is our market position?
|-- Market leader --> Set price; competitors follow or undercut
|-- Challenger --> Price slightly below leader; compete on value
|-- Niche player --> Premium pricing for specialized offering
|-- New entrant --> Penetration pricing or freemium to gain share
What is the price sensitivity of target customers?
|-- High sensitivity (commodity) --> Compete on price + efficiency
|-- Medium sensitivity --> Value-based pricing with clear differentiation
|-- Low sensitivity (premium) --> Premium pricing with exclusivity
# Competitive Response: {Competitor} — {Move}
## Situation Assessment
- Competitor move: {what they did}
- Date: {when}
- Impact on our position: {assessment}
- Urgency: {immediate / this quarter / monitor}
## Recommendation
{respond / monitor / no action}
## Response Plan (if respond)
| Action | Owner | Timeline | Resources | Success Metric |
|--------|-------|----------|-----------|----------------|
## Risk Assessment
{risks of responding vs risks of not responding}
## Triggers for Escalation
{what would cause us to change our response}
# Market Entry: {Market Name}
## Market Opportunity
TAM: ${amount}
Growth rate: {X% YoY}
Our target segment: {description}
Estimated SAM: ${amount}
## Entry Strategy
Mode: {organic / acquisition / partnership}
Timeline: {entry date} to {target milestone}
Initial investment: ${amount}
Break-even timeline: {timeframe}
## Go-to-Market
Distribution: {channels}
Pricing: {strategy relative to competitors}
Positioning: {differentiation message}
## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|--------|------------|
| {risk} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {mitigation} |
## Success Criteria
{measurable outcomes within 6/12/24 months}
# Trend Analysis: {Market/Industry}
| Trend | Direction | Impact (1-5) | Timeframe | Our Response | Priority |
|-------|-----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|----------|
| {trend} | ↗/→/↘ | {score} | {near/med/long} | {action} | {H/M/L} |
Key signal strength indicators:
- {signal}: {strong / moderate / weak} — {evidence}
- {signal}: {strong / moderate / weak} — {evidence}
Scenario: If {key trend} accelerates, our strategy should {shift}.
Scenario: If {key trend} reverses, our strategy should {shift}.
Map each competitor's likely response to your market entry:
| Competitor | Likelihood of Response | Response Speed | Response Type | Our Counter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {name} | High/Med/Low | Fast/Med/Slow | Price/Feature/Marketing | {plan} |
Response types: price matching, feature parity, marketing blitz, exclusivity deals, legal challenges, acquisition of supplier. Prepare counter-strategies for each response type before entering the market.
| Method | Data Required | Best For | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue-based | Public financial reports | Public companies | Limited to public data |
| User-based | Analytics, survey data | Consumer products | Usage ≠ paying users |
| Survey-based | Customer surveys | B2B, niche markets | Sample bias |
| Traffic-based | SimilarWeb, SEMrush | Digital products | Doesn't capture offline |
| Analyst reports | Gartner MQ, Forrester Wave | Enterprise software | Analyst bias, cost |
Triangulate from at least 2 methods. If methods diverge >20%, investigate why.
Map your offering against competitors on key competitive factors:
High ──────────────────────────────────
| \ /
| \ /
Med | \ /
| \ /
| \_________/
Low ──────────────────────────────────
Factor A B C D E F
--- Industry curve
... Our offering
Identify factors to: Eliminate (industry standard but no value), Reduce (below industry standard), Raise (above industry standard), Create (new to industry). The resulting strategy canvas shows your differentiation at a glance.
Defining TAM so broadly that it includes markets you can never serve. "We're in the $3T healthcare market" when you sell appointment scheduling software to US dental practices ($2B SAM). Anti-pattern signal: TAM is >100x your realistic SOM. Fix: define TAM as the narrowest reasonable market. Add adjacent market expansion in the future section.
Analyzing market size without considering whether the market is ready. You may have the right product for a market that doesn't exist yet (too early) or a market that has passed you by (too late). Fix: map technology adoption lifecycle. Identify early adopter segment. Estimate mainstream adoption timeline. Factor timing risk into market size projections.
Over-reacting to every competitor move. Building features to match competitor releases instead of focusing on customer needs. Anti-pattern signal: roadmap driven by competitor launches, not customer research. Fix: maintain a competitive watch list but make product decisions based on customer value.
Analyzing only successful competitors and ignoring failed ones. Misses important lessons about what doesn't work in this market. Anti-pattern signal: all competitors look strong. Fix: include failed competitors in the analysis. What mistakes did they make? What would you do differently?
Collecting massive amounts of market data without drawing actionable conclusions. The analysis section is comprehensive but there is no "so what" section. Fix: every section should end with implications for your product strategy. The final section should synthesize all findings into 3-5 actionable recommendations.
| Metric | Target | How to Measure | Remediation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data source quality | >80% primary or respected secondary | Source audit, citation count | Add 3+ sources per estimate |
| TAM reconciliation | Top-down and bottom-up within 2x | Compare both methods | Revisit segment % assumptions |
| Competitor coverage | Top 7 competitors deep-dived | Count per competitor depth | Add missing competitors |
| SWOT completeness | No empty quadrants, 3+ items each | Quadrant audit | Research gaps |
| Analysis freshness | <6 months old | Date check | Schedule refresh |
| Actions derived | 3+ actionable recommendations | Count in synthesis section | Add "What this means for us" |
| Feature matrix accuracy | Validated by product use | Spot-check competitor features | Test products, not just website |
| Market timing assessment | Included in every analysis | Section presence check | Add adoption lifecycle mapping |
| Method | Cost | Sample Size | Data Quality | Timeline | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary surveys | Medium | 100-1000+ | High | 2-4 weeks | WTP, satisfaction, segment needs |
| Customer interviews | Low | 10-30 | Very high | 2-3 weeks | Deep needs, pain points |
| Secondary research | Low | N/A | Medium | 1-2 weeks | Market sizing, competitor intel |
| Focus groups | High | 6-10 per group | Medium | 3-4 weeks | Concept testing, messaging |
| Data analytics | Medium | All users | High | 1-4 weeks | Behavioral insights, segments |
| Expert interviews | Medium | 5-15 | High | 2-3 weeks | Industry trends, validation |
Triangulate findings from at least 2 methods for critical decisions.
For each force, assess with evidence and derive strategic implications:
| Force | Factors to Assess | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Threat of new entrants | Barriers to entry, capital requirements, economies of scale, switching costs, regulation | How hard is it for a new company to enter? What advantages do incumbents have? |
| Supplier power | Number of suppliers, switching costs, uniqueness of inputs, forward integration risk | Can suppliers dictate terms? Are we dependent on specific vendors? |
| Buyer power | Number of buyers, switching costs, price sensitivity, product differentiation | Can customers demand lower prices? How easy is it to switch? |
| Threat of substitutes | Alternative solutions, price-performance trade-off, switching cost to substitute | What else can customers use instead? Are substitutes improving? |
| Competitive rivalry | Number of competitors, industry growth rate, exit barriers, differentiation level | How intense is current competition? Is the market consolidating? |
Score each force: 1 (weak/benign) to 5 (strong/threatening). Total score reveals market attractiveness. For scoring, use evidence not intuition. Validate with market participants. A score of 20-25 = highly attractive market, 10-15 = moderately attractive, 5-9 = unattractive.
create-roadmap, create-pitch-deck