Map competitors and exclusions
What to avoid, copy, and counter
After this, you'll be able to create a competitor and exclusion map and use it to move from vague brand taste toward a usable identity system.
Before you start
Complete Write the promise and proof first.
The idea
Competitors are useful because they show what the audience already expects and what your brand should avoid. This lesson asks you to make a competitor and exclusion map, not a vague creative preference. The output should be specific enough that Claude, Canva, Adobe Express, Claude Design, or a designer can use it without guessing.
Here is the before and after: Before, Claude copies the category average because that is the most visible reference. After, you know what to borrow, what to reject, and where the brand can feel different without confusing people. For example, a solo service brand should show who it helps, what promise it makes, what proof supports that promise, and where the identity must appear first. A company brand should add rules for collaborators, templates, and repeated use.
Now try it: List three competitors or references and ask Claude to separate patterns from traps. Make one choice before asking Claude to write: audience, promise, reference, asset type, tool, launch context, or review risk. That choice keeps the work from turning into generic brand inspiration.
- Messy inputThe raw brand identity material before the lesson shapes it.
- a competitor and exclusion mapThe thing you can inspect, edit, and reuse.
- Review checkThe brand review check that catches a weak assumption.
- Next stepThe output moves into the next lesson instead of sitting alone.
The lesson is done when the artifact can guide a real brand asset and survive one honest review.
Try it (15 min)
Watch out for
- Rejecting every category cue until the brand becomes hard to understand.
- Copying a competitor because it looks polished.
- Using references from brands with different audiences.
Paste this into Claude
Create a competitor and exclusion map for this brand: [paste]. For each competitor or reference, list what to learn from, what to avoid, what the audience expects, and one way we can be distinct without being unclear. If any input is missing, ask me up to three questions before producing the artifact. Then return five sections: Finished Artifact, Realistic Brand Example, Assumptions To Check, What I Should Use In The Next Lesson, and One Risk If I Use This Publicly Without Fixing It. Keep the answer practical enough that I can paste it into my brand working doc.
What a good response looks like
Finished Artifact: - a competitor and exclusion map - Why it matters: it gives the brand system a concrete thing to inspect instead of a vague intention. - Use it next: paste this artifact into the next lesson before asking Claude to write, build, import, publish, or review anything. Reality Check: - The artifact names the user, input, decision, owner, or proof it depends on. - The weakest assumption is visible. - The next step can be completed in one sitting.
What good looks like
- At least three references are compared.
- Each reference has borrow and avoid notes.
- Audience expectations are named.
- One distinct choice is selected.
Go deeper (8 min)
Paste this into Claude
Without rereading the lesson, explain why a competitor and exclusion map matters in three bullets. Then apply it to a second brand example: [describe a different solo brand, company, or project]. Return What Changed, What Stayed The Same, What To Check Before Public Use, and the exact next action.
What a good response looks like
Transfer Check: - What changed: the second example has a different audience, input, or delivery context. - What stayed the same: a competitor and exclusion map still needs a source, a review check, and a next step. - Before trusting it: inspect the brand review check that would catch a wrong assumption. - Next action: run the check once, then carry the revised artifact into the next lesson.
What good looks like
- You explained the lesson idea from memory before applying it again.
- The second example changes the artifact instead of copying the first answer.
- The public-use check names a real risk.
- The next action can be done in one sitting.
When this breaks
- Breaks when category cues are ignored because the audience cannot place the offer.
- Fails when references are copied because the brand loses its own reason to exist.
AI can help with this
Paste the exercise prompt into Claude with your real brand context. Ask Claude to interview you one question at a time, produce a competitor and exclusion map, challenge the weakest assumption, and rewrite the artifact once so it is ready for the next brand step.
You can now
You can point to a competitor and exclusion map.
- You can explain what brand decision it makes clearer.
- You can name the assumption that still needs checking.
- You can use the output in the next lesson.
Key takeaways
Competitor review is not imitation. It helps you choose what to keep, reject, and make clearer.
- References reveal category expectations.
- Exclusions protect the brand from drift.
- Distinct does not mean confusing.
- Competitor polish is not a strategy.