A positioning statement is the result of a decision about who should care, what they compare you with, and why your difference matters. Filling in a sentence does not make that decision for you. This SaaS positioning statement template starts with evidence, compares two plausible positions, and leaves unproven benefits visible.
Positioning comes before the tagline
A tagline is a short expression a reader sees. Positioning supplies the context behind it: the customer, the alternatives they consider, your relevant difference and the value that difference might create. You can write an elegant tagline while still being compared with the wrong kind of product.
April Dunford's positioning exercise warns against treating a completed statement as completed positioning. Her guidance works through product differences, their value, the customers who care and the market context. The worksheet here is Soloop's original editorial tool, informed by that distinction; it is not Dunford's template.
Use the exercise to investigate the choices behind a position before compressing them into a sentence. Revisit those choices when the product or market changes.
Read A Product Positioning ExerciseStart with the alternative the buyer actually uses
Ask what happened the last time the buyer tried to finish the task. The alternative might be another SaaS product, a spreadsheet, a service or doing nothing. A company you admire is not automatically the alternative that shapes a buyer's expectations.
Keep a small evidence record: product behavior you inspected, a source URL or permissioned note, its date, and what remains unknown. A prospect's description is reported evidence; a demonstration you watched is observed evidence. Your explanation of why something matters is an inference until the relevant person or behavior supports it.
Use the competitor-analysis guide to gather those facts and the ICP worksheet to define who the comparison concerns. This page handles the next decision: which interpretation of the facts is useful enough to test as a position.
Worked example: one product, two positioning hypotheses
ReviewQueue and every record below are fictional teaching examples. The notes, capabilities and statements are invented; they are not real customer evidence or Soloop task output. The same imaginary product appears in the GTM guide so you can compare positioning and sales-motion decisions without changing the product.
Assume demo record D1 shows a pending-deliverables list, shareable review links and recorded client decisions. It also confirms no invoicing, payment collection, time tracking or general task dependencies. Fictional interview note I1 reports that an agency operations lead checks chat and a spreadsheet for approval status. I1 does not establish how often a status is missed or whether the lead would pay to replace that workflow.
| Dimension | A · Client approval workspace | B · Agency project management |
|---|---|---|
| Customer / situation | Agency operations lead collecting client decisions on deliverables; workflow described in I1. | Same lead coordinating complete client projects; broader need is an assumption, not established by I1. |
| Current alternative | Chat plus a spreadsheet for approval status, reported in I1; adequacy remains open. | A general project-management suite; use by this buyer has not been established. |
| Product evidence | D1 shows a review link, pending list and decision record tied to a deliverable. | D1 shows a list and statuses, but no time tracking or task dependencies. |
| Possible difference | An explicit client decision attached to the review item instead of scattered status messages. Uniqueness across competitors is unknown. | A narrower list than a project suite. Less functionality is not itself a buyer-valued advantage. |
| Valued consequence | The lead may find approval status in one place. Whether this reduces follow-up work is unmeasured. | The lead might have less software to configure, but may still need a separate project suite. Net effort is unknown. |
| Market context | A workspace for client approvals; bounded by a specific review job. | Agency project management; may create expectations that D1 cannot satisfy. |
| Contrary evidence | Fictional follow-up I2: this lead says the current spreadsheet is adequate and some clients will not open another tool. | D1 lacks functions implied by the broader category. I1 concerns approval status, not replacing project management. |
| Willingness to pay | Unknown. Interest in a clearer record does not establish a budget or purchase. | Unknown. No offer or replacement decision has been tested. |
| Next check | With permission, observe a real approval cycle and whether a client uses the review link. Record the workaround if they refuse. | Ask which capabilities a buyer expects from this category before considering it again. Do not promise those features. |
Remove the benefit the evidence cannot support
An early fictional draft says: ReviewQueue gets agencies paid twice as fast. Remove that sentence. D1 contains no payment capability, and none of the invented records measure invoices, payment timing or causality. A plausible chain from approval to invoicing to payment is not evidence for the claim.
A defensible product description is narrower: ReviewQueue shows pending client reviews and records approval decisions against deliverables. D1 supports those capabilities. Saves time chasing approvals remains a hypothesis until you observe whether the workflow changes and what other work it creates.
Do the same check for each adjective and comparison. Fastest needs a defined comparison and evidence. Easier needs a task and a user. Unique needs an inspected alternative set. When the evidence is missing, describe the capability directly or name the benefit as something to test.
Write both statements, then choose what to test
Use this structure after the worksheet: For [customer in a specific situation], [product] is a [market context] that provides [supported capability or evidenced benefit]. Compared with [actual alternative], it offers [relevant difference supported by a source]. Keep sources, unknowns and reversal conditions beside the statement even if they do not appear in published copy.
Hypothesis A: For agency operations leads tracking client approvals across chat and spreadsheets, ReviewQueue is a client approval workspace that shows pending reviews and records client decisions against deliverables. Its proposed distinction from the reported workaround is keeping the decision attached to the review item. D1 supports the capabilities; I1 supplies the workaround; the buyer's preference is unknown.
Hypothesis B: For agency operations leads coordinating client projects, ReviewQueue is a lightweight project-management tool centered on review status. This is a complete alternative hypothesis, but a poor current publishing choice: D1 cannot support the broader category's likely expectations, and I1 does not establish a project-management replacement need.
Choose A for a comprehension check, with the claim limited to demonstrated behavior. Keep B in the decision record with the reason it was rejected. If later evidence points to a different category, reconsider the position before changing the headline everywhere.
Copy the two-hypothesis positioning worksheet
Copy the table into a document and compare two positions for the same current product. No account is required. Use source IDs with dates, and keep unknowns rather than filling gaps with attractive claims. On mobile, scroll sideways to compare both hypotheses.
| Dimension | Hypothesis A | Hypothesis B |
|---|---|---|
| Customer / trigger | [Role, situation, evidence ID] | [Role, situation, evidence ID] |
| Actual alternative | [What they use today; source or unknown] | [What they use today; source or unknown] |
| Product facts | [Current capability, inspected record and date] | [Same product facts; no invented features] |
| Relevant difference | [Difference from the named alternative; source] | [Difference from the named alternative; source] |
| Value / limits | [Consequence; observed, reported or inferred] | [Consequence; observed, reported or inferred] |
| Market context | [Category; expected capabilities you can support] | [Category; expected capabilities you can support] |
| Statement | [Customer + context + supported promise + difference] | [Customer + context + supported promise + difference] |
| Claim to remove | [Unsupported assertion; narrower replacement] | [Unsupported assertion; narrower replacement] |
| Contrary evidence | [Observation against the position; missing evidence] | [Observation against the position; missing evidence] |
| Payment / next check | [Willingness to pay: evidence or unknown; next human check] | [Willingness to pay: evidence or unknown; next human check] |
Check comprehension with people, then revisit the decision
Show the resulting message to a relevant person and ask what the product does, whom it is for and what they would compare it with. Let them answer before explaining your intended interpretation. Record misunderstanding and missing expectations as carefully as agreement.
The messaging guide below covers that test. Understanding the sentence is separate from preferring the product, using it or paying. If readers consistently expect project planning from an approval tool, revisit the context. If they understand it but their workaround is sufficient, investigate the need rather than repeatedly rewriting the tagline.
Bring the evidence and both hypotheses to Soloop
Copy this starter into the conversation: My product is [URL] for [role and workflow]. Current capabilities are [facts with sources]. Buyers currently use [alternative; evidence or unknown]. Compare these positions [A] and [B], separate supported claims from assumptions, and identify one piece of contrary evidence to seek next.
You can complete the worksheet yourself. If an external evidence gap calls for further research, discuss a bounded competitor-research task and review its proposed scope and cost before approving it. A generated statement or simulated buyer reaction does not validate the position. The public Soloop entry does not transfer this worksheet; copy it yourself and share only material you have permission to use.