Analysing a competitor properly

What it is good at

• Can pull recent public information, launches, pricing changes, campaigns, with sources and dates.
• Good at organising scattered research into a clean comparison structure.
• Helps separate what a competitor is doing well from what's just noise or vanity activity.
• Fast at re-running the same analysis quarterly to track change over time.

Where it falls short

• It only sees what's public, pricing, strategy or supplier details behind the scenes stay invisible.
• It can mistake marketing claims for actual performance; always separate the two explicitly.
• Recency depends on what's indexed at the time you run it, always check dates on findings.

How to use it for creative work

1. 01

   Define why you're looking

   State what decision this analysis needs to inform, pricing, positioning, a launch timing, rather than researching a competitor generally. This shapes what's worth including.

2. 02

   Research their recent public moves

   Ask for a dated list of the competitor's recent activity: launches, pricing changes, campaigns, hires, public statements, with a source link for each.

3. 03

   Separate claims from evidence

   Ask the model to flag which findings are the competitor's own marketing claims versus independently verifiable facts, so you don't mistake their PR for reality.

4. 04

   Build the direct comparison

   Ask for a side-by-side comparison against your own position on the specific dimensions that matter for your decision, price, positioning, audience, not everything.

5. 05

   Force a recommendation

   Ask directly: given this comparison, what should we do differently in the next quarter, and why. A comparison without this final step rarely leads anywhere.

Ready-to-use prompts

Research [competitor name]'s public activity over the last six months: launches, pricing changes, campaigns, notable hires or statements. Return a dated list, each with a source link.

From this list of findings: [paste], flag which are the competitor's own marketing claims versus independently verifiable facts. Note where you can't tell the difference.

Compare [competitor] against us on these specific dimensions: [list, e.g. price, target audience, positioning statement, main channel]. Use this data on them: [paste] and this on us: [paste].

Given this comparison: [paste], what should we do differently in the next quarter? Give one specific recommendation with reasoning, not a list of vague options.

Here's my competitor analysis from three months ago: [paste]. Research what's changed since then for [competitor] and tell me if our previous recommendation still holds.

Questions people ask

Is this a substitute for mystery shopping or direct customer research?

No, it's strong for public information analysis, but talking to actual customers who've compared you and the competitor still gives information this can't.

How do I avoid just copying a bigger competitor?

Focus the comparison on where your actual constraints and advantages differ, and ask explicitly for what a smaller or differently positioned player should do instead of copying the larger one directly.

How often is worth re-running this?

Quarterly is a reasonable default for a fast-moving market; twice a year is often enough for a slower one.