Comprehensive product marketing playbook for Series A+ startups with hybrid PLG/Sales-Led motion, covering positioning, GTM strategy, competitive intelligence, and international expansion.
Includes April Dunford positioning methodology, ICP definition frameworks, and messaging architecture for multiple buyer personas (economic, technical, end-user)
Provides competitive intelligence templates (battlecards, win/loss analysis) and GTM motion guidance (PLG vs. Sales-Led vs. Hybrid) with 90-
Fetches marketing-strategy-pmm from davila7/claude-code-templates and configures it for Cursor.
3
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ────────────────
│ · Cline · Codex · Goose · Windsurf
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ · Cursor · Aider · Continue
4
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
.cursor/skills/marketing-strategy-pmm
Restart Cursor to activate marketing-strategy-pmm. Access via /marketing-strategy-pmm in your agent's command palette.
⚠
Security Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Stage: Series A
Funding: $5-15M raised
Team Size: 20-50 people
Revenue: $1-5M ARR
Market Position: Challenger/Niche leader
Growth Rate Target: 3-5x YoY
Key Challenges:
- Prove product-market fit at scale
- Expand from early adopters → mainstream
- Enter new markets (EU/US/Canada)
- Compete against incumbents
- Build repeatable sales motion
Strategic Priorities (in order):
Nail positioning - Clear, differentiated value prop
Approach: Start horizontal, add verticals as you scale
By Use Case (messaging varies):
Use Case A: [e.g., Team collaboration]
Use Case B: [e.g., Client management]
Use Case C: [e.g., Project tracking]
Each use case = different landing page, messaging, case studies
By Geography (Series A focus):
US/Canada: Largest TAM, fastest sales cycles, highest willingness to pay
UK: English-speaking, gateway to EU, similar buying behavior to US
Germany: Largest EU economy, high data privacy standards (GDPR leader)
France: Second largest EU market, localization critical
Nordics: High tech adoption, English proficiency, smaller markets
Segmentation Priority Matrix:
Segment: US Mid-Market SaaS Companies (200-2000 employees)
Priority: 1 (Highest)
Rationale:
- Largest TAM ($5B)
- Fastest sales cycle (60 days avg)
- Highest win rate (35%)
- Strong product fit (use cases align)
- Existing customer base (50% of customers)
Budget Allocation: 50% of marketing spend
2. Positioning & Messaging
2.1 Positioning Framework (April Dunford Method)
Step 1: List Your True Competitive Alternatives
Not just direct competitors - what would customers do if your product didn't exist?
Alternatives:
1. Competitor A (direct)
2. Competitor B (direct)
3. Spreadsheets + email (status quo)
4. Build in-house (DIY)
5. Do nothing (ignore problem)
Step 2: Isolate Your Unique Attributes
What do you have that alternatives don't?
Unique Attributes:
1. [Feature X that no one else has]
2. [Integration Y that's exclusive]
3. [Approach Z that's differentiated]
4. [Performance metric better than all]
Step 3: Map Attributes to Value
What value do these attributes provide to customers?
Attribute: [Real-time collaboration]
→ Value: Teams can work together simultaneously
→ Outcome: 50% faster project completion
Attribute: [AI-powered automation]
→ Value: Eliminates manual data entry
→ Outcome: Save 10 hours/week per user
Step 4: Define Your Best-Fit Customers
Who cares most about this value?
Best-Fit: Mid-market SaaS companies (200-1000 employees)
Why: They have distributed teams, need real-time collaboration
Evidence: Fastest sales cycles, lowest churn, highest NPS
Step 5: Nail Your Market Category
What market do you dominate?
Options:
- Head-to-head: Compete in existing category (e.g., "CRM")
- Big fish, small pond: Own a niche (e.g., "CRM for agencies")
- Create new: Define new category (risky, expensive)
Decision: [Choose based on competitive strength and budget]
Step 6: Layer on Trends
What trends make this the right time to buy?
Trends:
- Remote work explosion (2020-2025)
- AI/ML adoption in enterprise (2024-2025)
- Data privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA)
2.2 Messaging Architecture
Value Proposition (One-Liner):
Template: [Product] helps [Target Customer] [Achieve Goal] by [Unique Approach]
Example: "Acme helps mid-market SaaS teams ship 2x faster by automating project workflows with AI"
Messaging Hierarchy:
LEVEL 1: Value Proposition (one-liner)
[Your one-liner here]
LEVEL 2: Key Benefits (3-5 bullet points)
- Benefit 1: [Speed] → Ship products 2x faster
- Benefit 2: [Quality] → Reduce bugs by 50%
- Benefit 3: [Collaboration] → Align teams in real-time
- Benefit 4: [Cost] → Save $100k/year on tools
LEVEL 3: Features (supporting evidence)
- Feature → Benefit → Outcome
- AI automation → Eliminates manual work → Save 10 hrs/week
- Real-time sync → No version conflicts → 50% fewer errors
- Integrations → Connect existing tools → 80% faster onboarding
LEVEL 4: Proof Points
- Customer logos: [Microsoft, Shopify, Stripe]
- Stats: Used by 10,000+ teams, 4.8/5 G2 rating
- Case studies: How [Customer] achieved [Outcome]
Messaging by Persona:
Economic Buyer (VP/Director):
Primary concern: ROI, business outcomes
Tone: Professional, data-driven, results-focused
Key message: "Increase revenue by 25% while reducing costs by $200k/year"
Social media: Follow competitor execs, product teams
Partner channels: Talk to shared implementation partners
Industry reports: Gartner, Forrester, IDC
3.2 Competitive Battlecards
Battlecard Template (create one per competitor):
COMPETITOR: [Competitor A]
OVERVIEW:
- Founded: 2015
- Funding: Series C, $75M raised
- HQ: San Francisco
- Size: 200 employees
- Customers: 5,000+ companies
- Pricing: $50-$500/user/month
POSITIONING:
- They say: "All-in-one platform for modern teams"
- Reality: Broad but shallow, not deep in any use case
KEY STRENGTHS (What They Do Well):
1. Strong brand recognition (category leader)
2. Large feature set (breadth over depth)
3. Extensive integrations (2,000+ apps)
KEY WEAKNESSES (Where They Fall Short):
1. Complex UI (steep learning curve)
2. Expensive (2x our price at scale)
3. Poor support (low NPS in reviews)
4. Legacy architecture (slow performance)
OUR ADVANTAGES:
1. 10x easier to use (time-to-value in minutes vs. days)
2. 50% lower cost at 100+ users
3. Superior performance (2x faster load times)
4. White-glove onboarding (dedicated CSM)
WHEN TO WIN:
- Customer values ease of use over features
- Budget-conscious (not enterprise)
- Need fast time-to-value (<1 week)
- Poor experience with competitor (switching)
WHEN TO LOSE:
- Enterprise (>5000 employees) with complex requirements
- Need feature X that we don't have yet
- Deep integration with competitor's ecosystem
- Already invested heavily in competitor (sunk cost)
TALK TRACKS:
Objection: "We're already using [Competitor A]"
Response: "That's great - many of our customers came from [Competitor A]. What prompted you to explore alternatives? [Listen for pain points] Typically teams switch to us because [ease of use / cost / performance]. Would it be helpful to see a side-by-side comparison?"
Objection: "[Competitor A] has more features"
Response: "You're right - they've been around longer and have a broader feature set. Here's what we found: most teams only use 20% of those features. Our customers love that we focus on doing [core use case] exceptionally well rather than trying to do everything. What features are most critical for your team?"
PROOF POINTS:
- Case study: "[Customer] switched from [Competitor A], reduced costs by 60%"
- Review comparison: "[4.8 vs. 4.2 G2 rating in 'Ease of Use']"
- Win rate: "35% win rate in competitive deals"
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE:
[Link to competitive positioning map]
[Link to feature comparison matrix]
Battlecard Distribution:
Store in: Notion, Confluence, or sales enablement platform
Update frequency: Monthly (or when competitor launches major feature)
Access: Sales, CS, Product, Marketing teams
Training: Monthly competitive update calls with sales
3.3 Win/Loss Analysis
Win/Loss Interview Process:
Goals:
Understand why you won/lost
Validate positioning and messaging
Identify product gaps
Track competitive trends
Process:
Identify deals (closed won or lost in last 30 days)
Request interview (email or HubSpot workflow)
Conduct interview (30-45 min, record with permission)
Analyze data (themes, patterns, trends)
Share insights (monthly report to product, sales, marketing)
Interview Questions (pick 8-10):
For Wins:
What problem were you trying to solve?
What alternatives did you evaluate?
Why did you choose us over [Competitor]?
What almost made you choose someone else?
What could we improve?
For Losses:
What problem were you trying to solve?
Who did you choose instead? Why?
What did we do well in the sales process?
What could we have done differently?
Would you consider us in the future? When?
Data Tracking (in HubSpot or spreadsheet):
Deal
Outcome
Reason
Competitor
Price Factor
Product Gap
Messaging Issue
Implementation Guide
Prerequisites
›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
1Install skill using provided installation command
2Test with simple use case relevant to your work
3Evaluate output quality and relevance
4Iterate on prompts to improve results
5Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices
✓ Do
+Start with clear, specific prompts
+Provide relevant context and constraints
+Review and refine all outputs before using
+Iterate to improve output quality
+Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
−Don't use without understanding skill limitations
−Don't skip validation of outputs
−Don't share sensitive information in prompts
−Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
★Be specific about desired format and style
★Ask for multiple options to choose from
★Request explanations to understand reasoning
★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path
1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
