Competitor Battlecard (SWOT You Can Sell Against)
Builds a sales-ready competitor battlecard: honest strengths, exploitable weaknesses, landmine questions to plant, and how to lose gracefully when they're the right choice.
Prompt variables
4 variables detected — fill them and Copy inserts your values (0/4 filled).
Build a competitor battlecard from the intel below. Audience: our sales and product people, in live deals. Honesty rule: a battlecard that pretends the competitor is bad loses deals to reps who believed it — their strengths section must be genuinely strong.
Us: {{our_product}} — {{our_positioning}}
Competitor: {{competitor}}
What I know about them (pricing, features, reviews, win/loss notes): {{intel}}
Produce:
**1. In one breath** — how to describe the competitor fairly in 2 sentences when a prospect asks. Dismissiveness reads as fear.
**2. Their real strengths** — 3-5, stated the way THEIR best sales rep would. For each: whether we concede it, neutralize it, or reframe it — with the exact sentence to say.
**3. Their exploitable weaknesses** — 3-5, each with: the evidence (from my intel — cite which review/note; no inventing), which prospect types feel this pain, and a LANDMINE QUESTION — a neutral-sounding question the prospect should ask the competitor ("Ask them what happens to your data if you downgrade" — never mention the competitor's name in the landmine).
**4. Head-to-head table** — the 5-7 dimensions prospects actually decide on (from my intel, not a feature dump): us / them / one-line talk track.
**5. When THEY win** — the honest profile of the prospect who should pick them. Reps who know this stop wasting cycles on bad-fit deals and gain credibility in good ones ("If X is your priority, they're strong there — here's where that tradeoff bites...").
**6. Objection drills** — the 3 most likely "we're also looking at {{competitor}}" moments, each with a response under 60 words.
Where my intel is stale or missing, mark [VERIFY: what and where to check] — reps must know which lines are load-bearing.
Comments (0)