Maya Patel·
My competitive landscape brief template. Forces every claim into an evidence table with confidence levels, so the deck that reaches leadership says what we know vs. what we assume.
Produces a decision-ready competitive landscape brief where every claim carries a source type and confidence grade.
Competitive Landscape Brief with Evidence Grading
You are a research analyst preparing a competitive landscape brief for an executive audience. Rigor over polish: every claim must be graded.
Market: {{market_definition}}
Our position: {{our_context}}
Decision this brief supports: {{decision}}
Source material (paste research notes, links, transcripts — whatever we have):
{{source_material}}
Build the brief in exactly this structure:
1. **Market framing** (100 words max): how the market segments, and which segment the decision concerns. If my source material implies a different segmentation than my market definition, flag the conflict first.
2. **Player table**: Competitor | Segment | Positioning in their words (quote from their site/materials) | Est. size or traction signal | Trajectory (growing/flat/declining + why you think so).
3. **Evidence table** — the core of the brief. Every claim used anywhere in this document appears here as a row: Claim | Source type (primary data / vendor claim / press / analyst / inference) | Confidence (High: multiple independent sources or primary data; Medium: single credible source; Low: inference or vendor self-report) | What would change this.
4. **Dynamics** (150 words max): the two or three forces actually shaping the next 18 months — pricing pressure, platform shifts, consolidation. Each force must reference evidence-table rows by number.
5. **Implications for the decision**: 3 bullets max, each in the form "Because [claim #], we should weigh [option] more/less heavily."
6. **What we do not know**: the 3 unknowns most likely to invalidate this brief, and the cheapest way to reduce each (specific: who to call, what to measure, what to buy).
Rules: no claim without an evidence row. Where sources conflict, show both and grade them; do not average. Mark every inference of yours explicitly as inference.
Ergebnisse
## Competitive Landscape Brief: AI Meeting Notetakers (mid-market segment)
### 1. Market framing
The market splits into three segments: consumer/prosumer free tools, mid-market team platforms (10-500 seats), and enterprise compliance-first suites. Your decision — whether to build native notetaking into the product or partner — concerns the mid-market, where notetaking is becoming a feature of adjacent platforms rather than a standalone purchase. Conflict flag: your market definition treats standalone notetakers as competitors; source material suggests the real threat is bundling by suites (rows 4, 7).
### 2. Player table
| Competitor | Segment | Positioning (their words) | Traction signal | Trajectory |
|-----------|---------|---------------------------|-----------------|------------|
| Otter.ai | Prosumer→mid | "AI meeting agent" | ~25M users claimed | Flat — pivoting upmarket |
| Fireflies | Mid-market | "Automate your meeting notes" | 500k+ orgs claimed | Growing |
| Fathom | Mid-market | "Free AI notetaker" | #1 in G2 momentum | Growing fast |
| Zoom AI Companion | Suite bundle | "Included at no additional cost" | Bundled into paid Zoom | Growing (distribution) |
| Granola | Prosumer | "Notepad for people in back-to-back meetings" | Strong word-of-mouth | Growing (niche) |
### 3. Evidence table (excerpt)
| # | Claim | Source type | Confidence | Would change it |
|---|-------|-------------|------------|------------------|
| 1 | Otter claims ~25M users | Vendor self-report | Low | Independent MAU data |
| 2 | Fathom leads G2 momentum in category | Analyst/platform data | Medium | Next quarter's report |
| 3 | Zoom bundles AI notes into paid tiers | Primary (their pricing page) | High | Pricing change |
| 4 | Bundling is compressing standalone willingness-to-pay | Inference from 3 + churn anecdotes | Low-Medium | Win/loss interviews |
| 7 | Mid-market buyers prefer fewer vendors | Analyst survey (n=400) | Medium | Our own customer survey |
### 4. Dynamics
Bundling (rows 3, 4) is the dominant force: when the meeting platform includes notes "free," standalone tools must win on quality or workflow depth. Second: privacy posture is becoming a differentiator in Europe (row 7) — on-device and no-training guarantees appear in win reasons. Third: consolidation is likely; two standalone players raised bridge rounds rather than up-rounds (row 9, Low confidence).
### 5. Implications
- Because bundling compresses standalone pricing (row 4), weigh **partnering** over building a me-too notetaker.
- Because privacy is a rising differentiator (row 7), weigh European-first positioning more heavily if building.
- Because traction claims are largely self-reported (rows 1, 5), do NOT base the build/partner call on competitor scale figures.
### 6. What we do not know
1. Actual churn of standalone notetakers post-Zoom-bundle → cheapest fix: 10 win/loss calls with churned Fireflies customers.
2. Whether our users even want notes inside our product → 1-week fake-door test, ~2 days of work.
3. Fathom's revenue reality behind the free tier → analyst call or a former-employee interview.
Modell: o3
11 Likes6 SavesScore: 9
1 Kommentar
Anna Hofmann·
Grading vendor self-reports as Low by default should be standard practice everywhere. Most decks launder those numbers into facts.