Strategy
Strategy Phase: From Understanding to Decisions
The strategy phase turns research data into concrete decisions: how to position, what to offer, at what price. All artifacts in this phase build on the results of the research phase — segments, Job Statements, pain map.
Competitive Landscape
Methodology: Consideration Set + Non-consumption
In Product DNA, competitive analysis is built not on features, but on the Consideration Set — the set of solutions the user actually considers before purchasing. This includes:
| Competitor Type | Definition | Example (time tracking) |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | Solve the same Core Job | Toggl, Clockify, Harvest |
| Indirect | Solve a Related Job, sometimes covering the Core Job | Notion (tables), Trello (lists) |
| Non-consumption | User does NOT solve the task at all | "Just remember", "By estimate", Excel |
Consideration Set: Buyer's Mental Model
The Consideration Set forms before the trigger, not after. By the time the user starts actively searching, they already know 2-3 options. Marketing must enter the Consideration Set in advance — through content, recommendations, SEO.
— Name: Google Sheets + timer
— Satisfaction level: 4/10
— Switching cost: time for data migration (2-3 hours)
Known alternatives:
— Toggl: "good at tracking, but no client reports" (learned from a colleague)
— Clockify: "free, but looks cheap" (found on Google)
Beliefs: "All trackers are the same", "Free ones = no support"
Fears: "I'll lose data during migration", "I'll get used to it and they'll shut down"
Analysis Quality Criteria
- Competitors are evaluated by Jobs, not by features
- For each competitor, it's noted which Jobs they solve well, poorly, or don't solve
- Non-consumption is included as a full competitor
- Vocabulary from interviews (DP11: "what they told others") is used for descriptions
- Add competitor URLs in chat — AI will analyze their positioning
- Share pricing tiers — this improves the pricing model and unit economics
- Share what competitor users say (reviews) — for extracting pains
Positioning
Methodology: April Dunford + Product DNA Job Language
Positioning defines your product's place in the target audience's mind. AI generates positioning using the April Dunford framework, enhanced with Product DNA:
| Component | Definition | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Category | What market category the product exists in | Niche from context |
| Alternatives | What they currently use (Consideration Set) | Competitive landscape |
| Unique Attributes | What differentiates from alternatives | Jobs that competitors DON'T solve |
| Value | What benefit the customer gets | Desired outcomes from Job Statements |
| Target Segment | For whom this matters most | A-segment from ABCDX |
Positioning Formula
"For [target segment] who [situation/trigger], [product] is a [category] that [key differentiator]. Unlike [alternatives], we [unique value]."
Language from interviews: "tracks for me", "report in one click", "don't have to think about the timer" — all from DP11.
Value Proposition (Value Proposition Canvas)
Methodology: Value Proposition Canvas + JTBD Fit
The value proposition is built as a Value Proposition Canvas adapted for Product DNA. Both sides of the Canvas must match — this IS Product-Market Fit:
| Customer Profile (right side) | Value Map (left side) |
|---|---|
| Jobs: Core/Emotional/Social Jobs from research | Products/Services: What your product offers |
| Pains: Pains from the pain map | Pain Relievers: How the product alleviates each pain |
| Gains: Desired benefits (desired outcomes) | Gain Creators: How the product creates each benefit |
Fit Score
AI calculates a Fit Score (0-100%) — the degree of alignment between Value Map and Customer Profile. The Fit Score consists of:
- Pain-Reliever fit: how many of the top-10 pains are covered by pain relievers
- Gain-Creator fit: how many desired outcomes are covered by gain creators
- Job-Product fit: how well product features correspond to Core Jobs
Gain: "Professional report for the client" → Gain Creator: "Auto-generated branded PDF" → Fit: 90%
Pain: "Hard to invoice" → Pain Reliever: absent → Fit: 0% (gap!)
Overall Fit Score: 72% — good, but there's a gap in billing integration.
Switch Formula in the Value Proposition
The value proposition must deliver ≥ 2x value compared to the current solution. This is the loss aversion rule from neuroscience: losses feel ~2x stronger than gains (Kahneman). If your product is only slightly better — the user won't switch, because the pain of transition (Inertia + Anxiety) will outweigh the benefit.
Offer Bank
Methodology: 5 Awareness Levels + Job Language
The Offer Bank generates advertising propositions adapted to the buyer's awareness level. Each offer is tied to a specific pain and Job Statement.
| Level | Product DNA State | Offer Type | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unaware | Big Job exists, work is not performed | Educational content without CTA | "How freelancers stop losing money on tracking" |
| Problem Aware | Push is active, Consideration Set is empty | Name the problem + show a solution exists | "40% of freelancers lose 5hr/week on tracking" |
| Solution Aware | Active search, Switch phase | Activating Knowledge: why YOUR product is better | "Unlike Toggl, no need to press Start" |
| Product Aware | Comparing in Consideration Set | Demo, case studies, ROI calculator | "1,200 freelancers save 5hr/week" |
| Most Aware | Push + Pull outweigh | Direct offer + alleviate Anxiety | "14 days free, migration in 30 seconds" |
Offer Types in the Bank
- Main headline — for landing pages and ads (in Core Job language)
- Subheadline — value expansion through desired outcome
- CTA — call to action (tied to a micro job)
- Social proof — review formulations (from DP11)
- Objection handlers — responses to Anxiety from the Switch formula
- Activating Knowledge — phrases that update the Consideration Set
Activating Knowledge
Activating Knowledge — 3-5 phrases that change the user's mental model and trigger a Switch WITH YOUR product. Extracted from DP11 (what early users told others) and search queries for orientational jobs.
Target segment: A (freelance designers)
Target Big Job: Build a stable freelance income
Next step: User searches "automatic time tracking Figma"
Delivery channel: Blog content, YouTube review, colleague recommendation
Pricing Model
Methodology: Three Pricing Dimensions
AI analyzes pricing through a synthesis of three frameworks. The right price lies at the intersection of all three:
| Dimension | Framework | Formula | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair price | Value-based pricing (Nagle & Müller, 2018): 1/10 rule | Customer value ÷ 10 | If saving $1,000/month → price $100/month |
| Switchable price | Product DNA (loss aversion) | New value ÷ Old value ≥ 2x | Must be 2x better to overcome habit |
| Profitable price | Unit Economics | LTV ÷ CAC ≥ 3, payback ≤ 12 months | Business must be economically viable |
Pricing Models
| Model | When to Use | Example | Product DNA Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freemium | Large TAM, virality, low ARPU | Toggl, Notion | Micro Job free, Core Job — paid |
| Subscription | Regular usage, high retention | Netflix, Spotify | Frequency = daily/weekly |
| Per-seat | B2B, team usage | Slack, Figma | Virality = shared/social |
| Usage-based | Irregular usage | AWS, Twilio | Frequency = monthly/quarterly |
| One-time | One-off value | Courses, templates | Frequency = once |
WTP Estimation (Willingness to Pay)
WTP is extracted from several sources:
- DP16 (Budget/WTP signal): Direct signal from interviews — "how much do you pay now?"
- Competitor prices: Set an anchor in the Consideration Set
- Cost of the problem: If the problem costs the client $1,000/month → WTP = $50-300/month
- Pre-order test: The strongest signal — real money before the product exists
Simplicity Rule
2. 1/10 rule: $300 ÷ 10 = $30/month
3. Loss aversion: Competitors (Toggl) = $10/month. Our value must be ≥ 2x → ≥ $20/month value ✓
4. Unit economics: At $10/month and LTV 14 months: LTV = $140, CAC = $32, LTV/CAC = 4.3x ✓
Result: $10/month price passes all 3 checks.