benchmark-methodology
用九個加權面向和證據，把競爭對手打分成可比較的檔案卡
中文翻譯
--- name: benchmark-methodology description: "把界定好範圍的競爭對手清單，打分成可以互相比較的檔案卡：九個加權面向（定位、語氣、視覺工藝、服務包裝、佐證、企業就緒度、思想領導力、定價、客戶張力），每個都有以證據為基礎的 1 到 5 分評分標準，以及一張張力 2x2 圖。對競爭對手做 benchmark 或打分、建立競爭比較矩陣，或在組裝報告前替對手的定位評等時使用；在 competitive-platform-analysis 之後、competitive-report-structure 之前執行。" license: MIT --- # Benchmark Methodology 用這個 skill 把界定好範圍的競爭對手清單，轉成**可比較、站得住腳的 分數**。每個競爭對手都用同樣的九個面向評估，並依 明確的 1 到 5 分評分標準打分，再記錄在統一格式的檔案卡裡。一致性 才是重點：只有當同樣的證據，對任何競爭對手都會得到同樣的數字， 分數才有用。 ## 何時啟用 - competitive-platform-analysis 產出的、有範圍和分級的競爭對手清單已經準備好，可以打分。 - 需要跨競爭對手的、以證據為基礎的可比較分數，不是憑直覺的排名。 - 客戶的策略張力（定義他們目標空白市場的成對軸線）已經確立。 - 準備產出檔案卡，供 competitive-report-structure 組裝。 ## 客戶定位簡報（先建立） 打分之前，先建立客戶的定位簡報。它提供： - **策略張力**：兩條軸線（例如 記憶度 × 可雇用度）， 交集處就是客戶的目標空白市場。面向 9 一定是 客戶命名的張力；兩端要分開報告，絕對不要取平均。 - **差異化優勢**：客戶的護城河是什麼。這會決定 哪些面向對客戶的定位論述最重要。 - **品牌平衡**：預期中各個不同策略重點的組合。策略 建議不能在沒有標示的情況下打破這個平衡。 ## 為什麼是這些面向 客戶競爭的是**兩端同時成立的特定張力**，不是 服務的廣度。這些面向的權重就是為了反映那條護城河。有兩個 面向，也就是張力的兩端，要**分開打分，絕對不平均在 一起**，因為客戶的策略問題，正是某個對手 有沒有同時做到兩端。 ## 九個面向（附權重） 權重用來引導綜合分析時的重點，不是用來算出單一的混合分數 （避免假的綜合分數，見偏見控制）。總和 = 100%。 1. **定位的清晰度與獨特性**（18%）：工作室的定位 是否鮮明、獨有、一眼就看得懂？還是很泛？ 2. **品牌語氣 / 文字上的獨特性**（15%）：文案有沒有 獨有的調性，還是可以跟任何代理商互換的行話？ 3. **視覺識別與網站工藝**（15%）：視覺 系統的品質和獨有程度；網站本身就是工藝的證明。 4. **服務內容與包裝**（12%）：產品化且清楚易懂（有命名的 sprint/稽核）還是模糊不清。包裝的成熟度。 5. **佐證與可信度**（12%）：具名的客戶、量化的成果、 案例研究的深度。主張之外的證明。 6. **企業就緒度 / 商業成熟度**（10%）：顯示他們有能力接下 並做好 SaaS/金融科技/B2B/企業案子的訊號（流程、logo、規模、合約）。 7. **思想領導力 / 內容能見度**（8%）：自有的觀點：文章、演講、 電子報、框架。看深度，不看數量。 8. **定價透明度與合作模式**（5%）：定價/合作方式 是否清楚？產品化、客製化，還是不透明。 9. **[客戶的策略張力]**（5%，作為一個旗標；**兩端都要打分， 分開報告**）：從客戶的定位簡報讀出張力的名稱和軸線描述。 兩端都畫上去；落差就是洞見。客戶的 目標象限是最重要的單一發現：還有誰已經在那裡了？ ## 評分標準（1 到 5 分，適用於面向 1 到 8） 每個分數都要以可觀察的證據為依據。下面是通用的描述；每個面向 可以調整細節，但各等級的意義要保持不變。 - **1：不存在 / 很泛。** 看不出有什麼定位或工藝；跟 範本沒兩樣。是主動的負債。 - **2：低於水準。** 有些意圖，但不一致、拾人牙慧或缺乏說服力。 經不起並排比較。 - **3：稱職 / 基本門檻。** 扎實、專業、平淡無奇。符合 預期，沒有任何人能獨有。 - **4：強 / 有辨識度。** 明顯勝過同業；買家 會注意到並引用的真實優勢。 - **5：定義品類。** 同類最佳、獨有、難以模仿。設定了 其他人都得回應的標竿。 ### 張力軸線（面向 9）：每一條都打 1 到 5 分 從客戶的定位簡報讀出軸線標籤和它們的 1/3/5 分錨點。以下是 記憶度 × 可信度這組張力的範例錨點： - **記憶度**：1：馬上就被忘記 · 3：放在脈絡裡認得出來 · 5：令人難忘、被人談論、鮮明地獨有。 - **可信度**：1：感覺有風險/業餘 · 3：安全、稱職、 但不令人興奮 · 5：受企業信任、顯然是安全的選擇。 把競爭對手畫在張力的 2×2 圖上。客戶的目標象限在 定位簡報裡有命名。還有誰佔據那個象限，是這次 benchmark 最重要的 單一發現。 ## 如何蒐集資料 對每個競爭對手，依這個順序處理各面向（先看成本最低的訊號）： 1. **競爭對手自己的網站**：定位、語氣、服務包裝、定價 姿態、具名客戶、宣言/觀點。把首頁加一個案例研究截圖存起來。 2. **案例研究 / 作品**：佐證的深度、量化的成果、客戶名稱。 區分*主張*（「我們交付了 X」）和*已證實*（有數據、具名、 可驗證）。 3. **評論目錄**：佐證客戶、專案規模、合作模式， →可信度與企業就緒度（例如 Clutch.co 或該利基市場的對應平台）。 4. **LinkedIn**：團隊規模/模式、創辦人的敘事、內容發布頻率 → 思想領導力、模式。 5. **作品集 / 工藝平台**：工藝的調性（用該 利基市場原生的展示管道：設計看板、作品集影片、已發表的樣本等）。 6. **內容管道**：電子報/演講/文章 → 思想領導力的深度。 **每個面向要記錄：**分數、一行理由，以及 讓它得到那個分數的來源連結/截圖。沒有證據就不給分。 ## 偏見控制 - **不要有單一的綜合分數。** 面向分數和張力圖要分開 報告。加權平均會掩蓋真正重要的不對稱。 - **主張與已證實。** 對沒有任何佐證的自我宣稱，要調降 可信度/佐證的分數。網站文案是行銷，不是事實。 - **審美親和偏見。** Reviewer 可能會對自己認同其審美的工作室打過高的分， 並低估對手的商業實力。工藝和可信度要 各自獨立打分；「無聊」的網站可能正在贏得更大的客戶。 - **近期 / 華麗偏見。** 得獎的、展示用的作品很耀眼，但可能 缺乏商業深度，在給可信度打分之前，要先用目錄/客戶驗證。 - **倖存者偏誤。** 能見度高、行銷做得好的工作室不等於整個市場； 要記下透過目錄/評論找到的、強但低調的經營者。 - **在整組之間校準，不要孤立地打分。** 定稿之前，把 分數並排重讀，每個競爭對手的「4」都必須代表同樣的意思。 要調整離群值。 ## 競爭對手檔案卡（輸出格式） 每個被建檔的競爭對手產出一張卡，這是報告組裝時的 最小單位： ``` ## <競爭對手名稱> - **Profile / Tier:** <定位立場 · 專長 · 規模級距> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational> - **One-liner:** <他們怎麼定位自己，用他們自己的話> - **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <地區> · <定價/合作模式> - **Notable clients / evidence:** <具名，並標註已證實/主張> ### Dimension scores | Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source | |---|---|---|---| | Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | | | Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | | | Visual identity & site craft | | | | | Service offer & packaging | | | | | Evidence & credibility | | | | | Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | | | Thought leadership / content presence | | | | | Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | | ### Tension plot - **[定位簡報的軸線 1]:** <1–5> — <原因> - **[定位簡報的軸線 2]:** <1–5> — <原因> - **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low> ### Read for [client] - **Strength to learn from:** <…> - **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…> - **Threat to [client]:** <…> ``` 把完成的卡片加上張力圖，交給 `competitive-report-structure`。 ## 反面模式 - **把張力軸線取平均。** 客戶策略張力的兩端必須分開打分、分開報告。取平均會毀掉洞見，兩端之間的落差才是發現。 - **沒有證據就打分。** 每個分數都需要一行理由和一個來源連結。沒有證據的分數是意見，不是 benchmark。 - **做出單一的綜合分數。** 各面向的分數要個別報告。加權平均會掩蓋對定位而言很重要的、不對稱的強項。 - **直接套用通用的評分錨點而不調整。** 1 到 5 分的錨點必須針對特定的面向和競爭對手組別校準。通用的描述只是起點，不是固定的標準。 - **在競爭對手清單劃定範圍之前就執行。** 先用 competitive-platform-analysis 產出分級、修剪過的清單。對沒劃定範圍的清單打分，會把力氣浪費在不相干的競爭對手上。 ## 相關 Skill - `competitive-platform-analysis`：前置步驟；產出這個 skill 要打分的分級競爭對手清單。 - `competitive-report-structure`：下一步；把打好分的檔案卡組裝成可交付給客戶的報告。
英文原文
---
name: benchmark-methodology
description: "Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot. Use when benchmarking or scoring competitors, building a competitive comparison matrix, or grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure."
license: MIT
---
# Benchmark Methodology
Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
number for any competitor.
## When to Activate
- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
## Why these dimensions
The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
achieves both simultaneously.
## The nine dimensions (with weights)
Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
system; site as proof-of-craft.
4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
there?
## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
from a template. Active liability.
- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
expectation, ownable by nobody.
- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
would notice and cite.
- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
bar others react to.
### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
important finding of the benchmark.
## How to collect the data
For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
study.
2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
verifiable).
3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
→ credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
thought leadership, model.
5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
## Bias controls
- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
credibility.
- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
Adjust outliers.
## Competitor profile card (output format)
Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
from:
```
## <Competitor name>
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
### Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
### Tension plot
- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
### Read for [client]
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
```
Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
## Related Skills
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.