Competitive Intelligence and Battlecards SKILL.md

This is the exact file agents read, including the credit header and licence notice. Save it as competitive-intelligence/SKILL.md.

---
name: competitive-intelligence
description: "Build a competitive intelligence programme: competitors tiered by deal data, ethical sources from win-loss, CRM, reviews, websites and sales calls, analysis from the buyer's view, one-page battlecards with landmines, objections and traps, fair comparison and alternatives pages, training, monitoring and win rate by competitor. Use whenever someone asks for battlecards, competitor analysis, competitive intelligence, how to win against a competitor, comparison pages, alternatives pages or why deals are lost to a rival."
license: CC-BY-4.0
metadata:
  author: Afeez Adebayo
  author_url: https://afeezadebayo.com
  author_linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
  author_x: https://x.com/za_icon
  source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/product-marketing/competitive-intelligence/
  category: marketing
  subcategory: product-marketing
  version: "1.0.0"
  created: "2026-10-10"
  updated: "2026-10-10"
---

# Competitive Intelligence and Battlecards

Buyers almost always compare options, and many deals are won or lost on how well a sales team handles competitors. Competitive intelligence collects what competitors do, how buyers perceive them and where each product wins; battlecards turn that into short, practical guidance reps use in real conversations. Most programmes fail in one of two ways: a huge competitor report nobody reads, or battlecards full of internal opinions that collapse the first time a buyer pushes back.

This skill builds a competitive intelligence programme: choosing which competitors matter, gathering evidence ethically, analysing strengths and weaknesses from the buyer's view, writing battlecards and comparison pages, and keeping them current.

## Operating principles
1. **Buyer's view, not ours.** What matters is why buyers choose a competitor, from win-loss and interviews.
2. **Accuracy over spin.** Overstated weaknesses destroy credibility in front of buyers.
3. **Short and usable.** Battlecards fit on one page and answer what reps need in the moment.
4. **Ethical sources only.** Public information, customer and prospect conversations, reviews and win-loss; no misrepresentation to obtain information.
5. **Keep it current.** Stale battlecards are worse than none.

## Competitor tiers
| Tier | Definition | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | Appears in many deals, often wins | Full battlecard, monthly updates |
| Secondary | Appears sometimes | Short battlecard, quarterly updates |
| Alternatives | Spreadsheets, agencies, in-house builds, doing nothing | Positioning against status quo |
| Emerging | New entrants, AI-native tools | Watch list |

## Sources
| Source | What it gives |
|---|---|
| Win-loss interviews | Why buyers chose them or you |
| CRM competitor fields and notes | Frequency and outcomes by competitor |
| Review sites (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, app stores) | Customer praise and complaints in their words |
| Competitor websites, pricing, docs, changelogs | Positioning, packaging, feature direction |
| Sales call recordings | How competitors come up and which objections follow |
| Job postings and press | Strategic direction |
| Customers who switched | Real experience of both products |

## When to use, and when not to
Use it when win rates against a competitor fall, when a new competitor appears, before launches, when sales asks for help, and to build comparison and alternatives pages.

Don't use it for positioning from scratch (`positioning`) or for detailed loss analysis (`win-loss-analysis`), though both feed it.

## Inputs to ask for, in one message
1. Competitor list and CRM data on deals involving each.
2. Win-loss findings.
3. Existing battlecards and comparison pages.
4. Review site data for you and competitors.
5. Product capabilities and roadmap themes you can share with sales.

## Workflow

### Step 1. Tier competitors
Use CRM data: frequency in deals, win rate against each, deal sizes.

### Step 2. Gather evidence
From the sources above; record source and date for every claim.

### Step 3. Analyse from the buyer's view
Where they win, where we win, which segments favour each, common objections and traps.

### Step 4. Write battlecards
One page per primary competitor (template below).

### Step 5. Build comparison content
Fair comparison pages and "alternatives" pages for search, with accurate, dated information.

### Step 6. Train and distribute
Short sessions with sales, battlecards inside the CRM or enablement tool, a channel for questions.

### Step 7. Monitor and update
Track competitor changes monthly; refresh battlecards after major releases or pricing changes.

### Step 8. Measure
Win rate by competitor, battlecard usage and rep feedback.

## Battlecard template
```
# <Competitor> battlecard (updated <date>)
Who they are: one line
Where they win: segments, use cases, strengths buyers value
Where we win: our strongest differentiators with proof
How to position: one-sentence framing
Landmines to lay: questions that expose their gaps fairly
Objections and responses: top 3 to 5
Traps to avoid: claims we should not make
Proof: case studies of customers who switched
Pricing notes: public pricing and packaging differences
Sources: links and dates
```

## Comparison page rules
- Accurate, dated and sourced; update when competitors change.
- Fair about where the competitor is strong; credibility wins buyers.
- Focused on criteria that matter to your best-fit customers.
- Avoid trademark misuse and false claims; check with legal.

## Landmine questions (examples)
| Our strength | Fair question for the buyer to ask any vendor |
|---|---|
| Workflow automation | How would you automate routing for 200 agents across three regions? |
| Reporting | Can you show SLA reporting by team without exporting to spreadsheets? |
| Security | Which certifications do you hold, and can we see the reports? |
Landmines should help buyers evaluate properly; they backfire if they rely on false claims about a competitor.

## Monitoring routine
| Frequency | Task |
|---|---|
| Weekly | Scan competitor changelogs, pricing pages and press |
| Monthly | Review CRM competitor outcomes and new review site themes |
| Quarterly | Refresh battlecards with win-loss findings; retire stale claims |
| After major competitor launches | Rapid update and a short note to sales |

## Metrics
| Metric | Source |
|---|---|
| Win rate against each primary competitor | CRM |
| Deals with competitor recorded | CRM hygiene |
| Battlecard views before calls | Enablement tool |
| Rep confidence score | Quarterly survey |
A rising win rate in target segments is the measure that matters; usage and confidence explain why it moves.

## Ethical boundaries
Use public information, customer and prospect conversations, reviews and win-loss. Never pose as a buyer to obtain competitor information, ask employees of competitors for confidential material or use leaked documents.

When in doubt, leave a claim out of the battlecard.

## Edge cases and judgement calls
| Situation | What to do |
|---|---|
| Competitor much larger | Position on a subsegment or use case where you win |
| Competitor cheaper | Show total cost and value; don't race to the bottom |
| Status quo is the main competitor | Build the case against doing nothing |
| Rumours about competitor problems | Don't use unverified claims |
| New AI-native entrants | Track closely; focus on proven outcomes and reliability |

## Handoffs to related skills
- Loss reasons: `win-loss-analysis`
- Positioning: `positioning`
- Messaging: `messaging-framework`
- Sales materials: `sales-enablement`
- Switch stories: `case-studies-customer-proof`
- Comparison pages for search: the Content SEO skills

## Worked example
A customer support software company was losing more deals to one competitor. CRM data showed losses clustered in companies under 50 seats, where buyers valued the competitor's simpler setup. Win-loss interviews confirmed it, and showed the company won in larger teams needing workflows and reporting. The new battlecard told reps to qualify team size early, position on workflow automation and reporting for growing teams, lay landmines around scaling limits fairly and stop trying to win small teams on features. Win rate against the competitor rose in target segments, and sales stopped spending time on deals that were unlikely to close.

## Output format
```
# Competitive intelligence pack: <company>, <date>
## Competitor tiers with deal data
## Analysis per primary competitor (buyer's view)
## Battlecards
## Comparison and alternatives page plan
## Monitoring and update schedule
## Metrics
```

## Common mistakes
- Long reports instead of usable battlecards.
- Internal opinions instead of buyer evidence.
- Overstated competitor weaknesses.
- Outdated pricing and features.
- Ignoring the status quo as a competitor.

## Questions to ask before you build
- Which competitors appear most in deals, and where do they win?
- What do buyers say about each, in win-loss and reviews?
- How do reps currently handle competitor questions?

## Self-check before you answer
- Are competitors tiered by deal data?
- Is analysis from the buyer's view with sources and dates?
- Are battlecards one page and accurate?
- Is there an update schedule and usage measure?

## Further reading
- Klue and Crayon competitive enablement resources: https://klue.com/blog and https://www.crayon.co/blog
- April Dunford, Sales Pitch (2023)

---
Created by Afeez Adebayo, Marketing, SEO & Growth Expert
Website: https://afeezadebayo.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
X: https://x.com/za_icon
Source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/product-marketing/competitive-intelligence/

Licence: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may copy, share and adapt this skill, including for commercial use, as long as you credit Afeez Adebayo and link to the source URL above. Keep this notice in any copy or adapted version.