30 Claude Prompts That Generate Market Research

You are a strategy analyst who assesses the macro forces shaping an industry. <context> I need a PESTEL analysis of the external forces affecting my market, delivered as one structured research document I can use in a strategy review. Focus on what is decision-relevant, not an encyclopedia. </context> <inputs> - Industry / market: [SECTOR] - Geography: [WHERE I OPERATE] - My business and what I am deciding: [CONTEXT AND DECISION] - Time horizon: [E.G. NEXT 3 YEARS] </inputs> <task> Produce a PESTEL report with a section for each factor (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal): 2-4 specific, current forces per factor, each tagged with likely direction (rising/falling), impact on my business (high/medium/low), and time horizon. End with a table ranking the top five forces by impact and a short 'so what' paragraph on the strategic implications. </task> <constraints> - Every force must state a concrete implication for my business, not a generic observation. - Mark speculation as speculation and note where a data source would confirm it. - Rank by impact so I know what actually matters. </constraints> <format> Return the PESTEL report as a document with the factor sections and a ranked-impact table (as an artifact), then note which two forces I should build a contingency plan for. </format>

You are an industry analyst who builds trend radars that separate signal from hype. <context> I need a trend radar for my industry, delivered as one structured research document that classifies trends by maturity and time-to-impact so I know what to act on now versus watch. </context> <inputs> - Industry: [SECTOR] - My business and role in it: [CONTEXT] - Trends I am already tracking: [LIST, OR ASK ME TO IDENTIFY] - Planning horizon: [E.G. 0-3 YEARS] </inputs> <task> Produce a trend-radar report with: a table of 8-12 trends, each with a one-line description, maturity stage (emerging / growing / mainstream / declining), time-to-impact (now / 1-2 yrs / 3+ yrs), and relevance to me (high/medium/low); a 'radar' grouping of trends into act-now, prepare, and watch buckets; and a short section on the two trends most likely to be over-hyped versus genuinely disruptive. </task> <constraints> - Distinguish durable shifts from fads; call out hype explicitly. - Rate relevance to my specific business, not the industry in the abstract. - Keep descriptions concrete enough that I could brief someone in one line. </constraints> <format> Return the trend radar as a document with the trend table and act/prepare/watch buckets (as an artifact), then note the single trend I cannot afford to ignore this year. </format>

You are a foresight analyst who assesses how emerging technologies could disrupt a business. <context> I need a disruption scan of emerging technologies relevant to my market, delivered as one structured research document that assesses threat and opportunity for each, with a recommended posture. </context> <inputs> - My business and current model: [WHAT I DO AND HOW I MAKE MONEY] - Technologies to assess: [E.G. AI AGENTS, SPECIFIC TECH, OR ASK ME TO SUGGEST] - What I most fear being disrupted: [CONCERN] - Time horizon: [YEARS] </inputs> <task> Produce a disruption-scan report with: a table of technologies, each with maturity, a plausible disruption scenario for my business, threat level, opportunity level, and time-to-relevance; a section describing the single most credible disruption narrative in a short paragraph; a 'defend' list and an 'attack' list of moves; and a recommended posture (ignore / monitor / experiment / invest) for each technology. </task> <constraints> - Give balanced threat AND opportunity framing for each tech, not just doom. - Make disruption scenarios concrete and mechanism-based, not buzzword bingo. - Recommend a clear posture per technology. </constraints> <format> Return the disruption scan as a document with the technology assessment table (as an artifact), then note which technology to run a small experiment on within 90 days. </format>

You are a strategy consultant who builds SWOT analyses grounded in market reality rather than internal opinion. <context> I need a SWOT analysis for my business that connects internal strengths and weaknesses to external market trends, delivered as one structured document with a follow-on strategy matrix. </context> <inputs> - My business: [WHAT I DO] - Honest self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses: [NOTES] - Key market trends affecting me: [TRENDS, OR ASK ME TO IDENTIFY] - My competitive context: [KEY RIVALS OR PRESSURES] </inputs> <task> Produce a SWOT document with: four populated quadrants (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) with 3-5 specific, evidenced points each; then a TOWS strategy matrix pairing them into concrete moves (SO = use strengths to seize opportunities, ST = use strengths to counter threats, WO = fix weaknesses to unlock opportunities, WT = defend against weakness-threat combinations); and a shortlist of the top three strategic priorities that emerge. </task> <constraints> - Every SWOT point must be specific and defensible, not a platitude like 'great team'. - Opportunities and threats must tie to real external trends, not internal wishes. - The TOWS moves must be concrete actions, not restated quadrants. </constraints> <format> Return the SWOT and TOWS as a document with quadrant and strategy-matrix tables (as an artifact), then note which single priority to start this quarter. </format>

You are a market strategist who turns raw trends into prioritized business opportunities. <context> I have a list of trends but need them converted into concrete, prioritized opportunities for my business, delivered as one structured research document with an impact-versus-effort matrix. </context> <inputs> - My business: [WHAT I DO] - Trends to evaluate: [LIST, OR ASK ME TO IDENTIFY] - My capabilities and constraints: [WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO] - Goal these opportunities should serve: [E.G. NEW REVENUE, RETENTION] </inputs> <task> Produce a report with: for each trend, one or two concrete opportunities it opens for my business; a table scoring each opportunity on potential impact (1-5), effort/feasibility (1-5), time-to-value, and strategic fit; an impact-versus-effort placement describing which opportunities are quick wins, big bets, or traps; and a prioritized shortlist of the top three with a first step for each. </task> <constraints> - Translate abstract trends into opportunities I could actually pursue, given my constraints. - Score consistently so the prioritization is comparable. - Flag seductive-but-low-fit opportunities as traps. </constraints> <format> Return the opportunity matrix as a document with the scoring table and quick-win/big-bet grouping (as an artifact), then note the one quick win to start this month. </format>

You are a pricing analyst who benchmarks how a market prices and packages. <context> I need a competitive pricing benchmark for my category, delivered as one structured research document with a comparison table so I can see where I sit and where the gaps are. Mark inferred prices clearly. </context> <inputs> - My product and current pricing: [OFFER AND MY PRICES] - Competitors to benchmark: [LIST] - What buyers are actually paying for (the value metric): [E.G. SEATS, USAGE, FEATURES] - Segment: [WHO BUYS] </inputs> <task> Produce a pricing benchmark with: a table of competitors x their tiers showing entry price, mid price, top price, the value metric they charge on, and what unlocks each tier; a section on the common pricing models in the category (flat, per-seat, usage, tiered) and which dominates; an analysis of where my pricing sits (underpriced, aligned, premium) with reasoning; and identified pricing whitespace (an underserved price point or model). </task> <constraints> - Label any price you infer versus one that is publicly listed. - Normalize tiers so the comparison is apples-to-apples where possible. - Name a concrete pricing gap, not a vague 'consider adjusting'. </constraints> <format> Return the pricing benchmark as a document with the comparison table (as an artifact), then note which competitor's pricing move would hurt me most and how I would respond. </format>

You are a pricing researcher who runs Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter studies. <context> I want to run a Van Westendorp price-sensitivity study and analyze the results. Deliver one structured research document containing both the survey design and an analysis template that turns responses into a recommended price range. </context> <inputs> - Product being priced: [OFFER] - Target respondents: [WHO I WILL SURVEY] - Current or candidate price: [PRICE, IF ANY] - Sample data or 'template only': [PASTE RESPONSE DATA OR SAY TEMPLATE ONLY] </inputs> <task> Produce a document with two parts. Part one: the four Van Westendorp questions worded correctly (too cheap, cheap/bargain, expensive, too expensive), screening questions, and a note on minimum sample size. Part two: an analysis template explaining how to plot the cumulative curves, how to read the point of marginal cheapness, point of marginal expensiveness, optimal price point, and indifference price point, and a results table to fill in. If I pasted data, compute the ranges; otherwise show the worked method with example numbers. </task> <constraints> - Word the four questions exactly per the method; a subtle rewording invalidates results. - Explain each derived price point in plain language, not just jargon. - If computing from data, show the logic; if template, use clearly-labeled example numbers. </constraints> <format> Return the study plan and analysis as one document with the question set and a results table (as an artifact), then note the sample size and respondent quality needed for the result to be trustworthy. </format>

You are a pricing strategist who sets prices from customer value rather than cost. <context> I want to price based on the value I create for customers, not my costs. Deliver one structured research document that estimates willingness-to-pay and recommends a value-based price with the reasoning. </context> <inputs> - Product and the outcome it delivers: [OFFER AND RESULT] - The measurable value to the customer: [TIME SAVED, REVENUE GAINED, COST AVOIDED] - Customer segment and their budget context: [WHO AND THEIR SPEND] - Next-best alternative and its price: [COMPETITOR OR STATUS QUO COST] </inputs> <task> Produce a WTP analysis with: a value quantification (the dollar value created per customer per year, shown as a calculation); a reference-price framing against the next-best alternative; an estimated willingness-to-pay range with the reasoning; a value-based price recommendation and the share of value it captures; a fairness check (does the customer clearly keep more value than they pay); and three ways to justify the price to a skeptical buyer. </task> <constraints> - Show the value math; do not assert willingness-to-pay without deriving it. - Ensure the recommended price leaves the customer a clear surplus. - Ground the reference price in a real alternative. </constraints> <format> Return the WTP analysis as a document with the value calculation and price recommendation (as an artifact), then note the one value driver to quantify precisely to defend the price. </format>

You are a monetization strategist who designs pricing tiers and packaging. <context> I need a packaging and tier design for my product, delivered as one structured research document with a recommended tier structure, what goes in each, and the logic. This is a finished artifact for a pricing review. </context> <inputs> - Product and its features: [OFFER AND FEATURE LIST] - Customer segments and their needs: [SEGMENTS] - The value metric I want to charge on: [E.G. SEATS, USAGE, OUTCOMES] - Business goal: [E.G. LAND SMB, PUSH UPGRADES, MOVE UPMARKET] </inputs> <task> Produce a packaging report with: a recommended set of 3-4 tiers with names, target segment, price anchor, and the value metric per tier; a feature-to-tier allocation table showing what is in each tier and which features are the deliberate 'fence' that drives upgrades; the free/trial strategy if relevant; add-ons versus core decisions; and the upgrade path logic explaining why a customer moves from one tier to the next. </task> <constraints> - Each tier must serve a distinct segment and give a clear reason to upgrade. - Choose value-metric fences deliberately; explain why each gated feature drives expansion. - Avoid too many tiers; justify the number chosen. </constraints> <format> Return the packaging design as a document with the tier and feature-allocation tables (as an artifact), then note which single feature placement most affects upgrade revenue. </format>

You are a revenue analyst who models the impact of a price change before it ships. <context> I am considering a price change and need to model the revenue impact under different demand assumptions. Deliver one structured research document with a scenario model so I can decide with eyes open. </context> <inputs> - Current price and volume: [PRICE AND CUSTOMERS OR UNITS] - Proposed new price: [NEW PRICE OR RANGE] - Assumed price elasticity or churn reaction: [ESTIMATE, OR ASK ME] - Cost per unit / gross margin: [MARGIN CONTEXT] - Segment or plan affected: [SCOPE] </inputs> <task> Produce a price-change model with: a baseline revenue and margin snapshot; a scenario table showing revenue, volume, and gross profit under low/base/high demand-response assumptions for the new price; the break-even volume loss (how much churn the price rise can absorb before revenue falls); a note on segment-specific risks (who churns first); and a clear go / adjust / hold recommendation with the reasoning. </task> <constraints> - Show the elasticity math and the break-even calculation explicitly. - Present low/base/high scenarios, not a single optimistic number. - Call out which customer segment carries the most churn risk. </constraints> <format> Return the price-change model as a document with the scenario and break-even tables (as an artifact), then note the leading indicator to watch in the first 30 days after the change. </format>

You are a go-to-market strategist who compresses a launch plan into a single decisive page. <context> I need a go-to-market strategy one-pager for my product or feature, delivered as one structured document that a leadership team can align on in one read. It should be a finished artifact, not an outline. </context> <inputs> - Product / feature: [WHAT IS LAUNCHING] - Target market and ICP: [WHO] - The core problem and our differentiated promise: [POSITIONING] - Primary GTM motion: [SELF-SERVE / SALES-LED / PLG / PARTNER] - Goal and timeframe: [E.G. 500 CUSTOMERS IN 6 MONTHS] </inputs> <task> Produce a GTM one-pager with: a one-sentence positioning statement; the target segment and ICP; the value proposition and top three differentiators; the primary GTM motion and why it fits; the priority channels; a pricing and packaging summary; the key metrics and targets; the biggest risks with mitigations; and a 90-day action list. Keep it tight and decision-ready. </task> <constraints> - Everything must fit a genuine one-pager; cut anything that is not decision-relevant. - Be specific: real channels, real numbers, real first actions. - The motion must match the price point and buyer, and you should say why. </constraints> <format> Return the GTM one-pager as a formatted document (as an artifact), then note the single assumption the whole plan depends on most. </format>

You are a demand-generation strategist who picks the right acquisition channels instead of spreading thin. <context> I need a channel strategy for reaching my target customer, delivered as one structured research document that scores and prioritizes channels so I know where to focus first. Deliver it as a reusable artifact. </context> <inputs> - Product and price point: [OFFER AND PRICING] - Target customer and where they spend attention: [ICP AND HABITS] - Budget and team capacity: [WHAT I CAN RESOURCE] - Sales cycle and deal size: [CONTEXT] - Channels already tried: [WHAT WORKED / DID NOT] </inputs> <task> Produce a channel report with: a table scoring 8-10 candidate channels (SEO, paid, content, outbound, partnerships, community, events, etc.) on audience fit, cost, time-to-results, scalability, and effort; a recommended primary channel and two supporting channels with reasoning; a rough CAC expectation and leading metric per prioritized channel; a 'do not bother yet' list with why; and a 90-day channel test plan. </task> <constraints> - Match channels to my price point and sales cycle; a long sales cycle rarely fits impulse channels. - Recommend focus, not a scattershot 'do everything'. - Be honest about channels that are wrong for this stage. </constraints> <format> Return the channel strategy as a document with the scoring matrix and 90-day test plan (as an artifact), then note the one channel to prove out before scaling spend. </format>

You are a go-to-market strategist who helps founders pick a beachhead market to dominate before expanding. <context> I have several possible markets and need to choose one beachhead to win first. Deliver one structured research document that scores the candidates and recommends where to start, with the reasoning. </context> <inputs> - Product: [OFFER] - Candidate markets / segments: [2-5 OPTIONS] - What I want out of the first market: [E.G. FAST REVENUE, REFERENCES, LEARNING] - My unfair advantages: [WHERE I HAVE AN EDGE] </inputs> <task> Produce a beachhead-selection report with: a scoring table rating each candidate on urgency of need, ease of reach, competition, my right-to-win, willingness to pay, and expansion potential into adjacent markets; a recommended beachhead with a clear rationale; a definition of what 'dominating' this beachhead looks like (a concrete milestone); the adjacent markets it unlocks next; and the top risk of choosing it. </task> <constraints> - Score all candidates on the same criteria for a fair comparison. - Favor a small market I can dominate over a big one I would be invisible in; explain the trade-off. - Define a concrete 'we own this beachhead' milestone, not a vague goal. </constraints> <format> Return the beachhead selection as a document with the scoring table (as an artifact), then note the first proof point that would confirm the chosen market is right. </format>

You are a positioning strategist who turns market insight into a crisp messaging framework. <context> I need a messaging and positioning canvas for my product, delivered as one structured document that gives my team a single source of truth for how we talk about the product. Deliver it as a finished artifact. </context> <inputs> - Product: [OFFER] - Target customer and their alternative today: [ICP AND STATUS QUO] - The core value and proof: [OUTCOME AND EVIDENCE] - Competitors and how they position: [RIVALS] - Brand tone: [HOW WE SOUND] </inputs> <task> Produce a positioning canvas with: a positioning statement (for [ICP] who [need], [product] is the [category] that [key benefit], unlike [alternative]); the market category we choose to compete in and why; three differentiators each with a supporting proof point; the primary value proposition plus messaging pillars; a message-per-persona table if there are multiple buyers; the objections and our responses; and a set of approved headline and boilerplate copy the team can reuse. </task> <constraints> - Choose a category deliberately; positioning fails when the reference frame is unclear. - Every differentiator needs a proof point, not just a claim. - Keep messaging consistent across the canvas; no contradictory promises. </constraints> <format> Return the positioning canvas as a document with the statement, pillars, and per-persona table (as an artifact), then note which differentiator to lead with in the first thing a prospect sees. </format>

You are a launch manager who turns a go-to-market strategy into a sequenced, owner-assigned plan. <context> I have a product to launch and need a structured launch plan with a phased timeline, delivered as one self-contained document my team can execute against. Deliver it as a finished artifact. </context> <inputs> - What is launching and target date: [PRODUCT AND DATE] - Audience and primary channels: [WHO AND WHERE] - Team and rough resources: [WHO IS INVOLVED] - Success metric for the launch: [E.G. SIGNUPS, REVENUE, PRESS] - Assets I already have: [WHAT EXISTS] </inputs> <task> Produce a launch plan with: three phases (pre-launch, launch, post-launch) with dates working back from the target; a task table per phase (task, owner placeholder, channel, due offset, dependency); the messaging and asset checklist per phase; the launch-day run-of-show; the success metrics with targets; and a risk-and-contingency section for the two most likely things to go wrong. </task> <constraints> - Sequence tasks with realistic lead times and dependencies; do not stack everything on launch day. - Assign an owner placeholder to every task so nothing is unowned. - Tie the plan to the stated success metric. </constraints> <format> Return the launch plan as a document with the phased task tables and run-of-show (as an artifact), then note the one pre-launch task that, if slipped, would force moving the date. </format>