home / skills / whawkinsiv / solo-founder-superpowers / market-research

market-research skill

/skills/market-research

This skill helps you size markets, analyze competition, and estimate TAM/SAM/SOM with napkin-math and bottom-up revenue methods.

npx playbooks add skill whawkinsiv/solo-founder-superpowers --skill market-research

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)
SKILL.md
9.0 KB
---
name: market-research
description: "Use this skill when the user needs to size a market, analyze competitors, calculate TAM/SAM/SOM, or validate a business idea. Covers market sizing, competitive analysis frameworks, napkin math, and bottom-up revenue estimation."
---

# Market Research & Competitive Analysis

Markets matter more than ideas. This skill helps you evaluate whether your market is worth entering — and how to validate demand before you build.

## Core Principles

- A mediocre product in a great market beats a brilliant product in a dead one.
- All market sizing is wrong. The goal is order-of-magnitude clarity, not decimal precision.
- Competitors are evidence that demand exists. Zero competitors is a warning sign, not an advantage.
- The best solo-founder markets have high pain, fragmented incumbents, and willingness to pay — not the biggest TAM.
- Research is only useful if it changes a decision. Every analysis should end with a clear recommendation.

---

## Early Validation: Before You Build Anything

### Finding Your First 10 People to Talk To

Before doing market sizing, validate that real people have this problem.

**Method 1: Cold Outreach (Fastest — 1-2 weeks)**
- LinkedIn: Search for your ICP's job title → send connection request with a note
- Twitter/X: Search hashtags related to the problem → DM active posters
- Reddit: Find niche subreddits → comment helpfully → DM engaged users
- Email: Find company websites of target customers → reach out to founders/decision-makers

**Cold outreach template:**
```
Subject: Quick question about [problem area]

Hi [Name],

I'm researching how [ICP role] handles [specific problem]. I noticed you [signal that they have this problem — e.g., posted about it, work in relevant role, use a competing tool].

Would you be open to a 15-minute call this week? I'm not selling anything — just trying to understand the problem better before I build a solution.

Happy to share what I learn from the research as a thank you.

[Your name]
```

**Method 2: Communities (Higher quality — 2-4 weeks)**
- Indie Hackers: Search for threads where your ICP discusses the problem
- Facebook Groups: Search for niche groups (e.g., "Freelance Copywriters", "SaaS Founders")
- Slack communities: Industry-specific channels, FounderPath, etc.
- Discord: More engaged than most channels for technical audiences

**Method 3: Landing Page Test (Lowest effort — 2-3 weeks)**
1. Build a simple landing page describing the problem you solve (use Lovable or Claude Code)
2. Drive 100-200 visits via communities, social posts, or $100-200 in ads
3. Measure: Signups / Visitors = interest rate
4. Below 5% signup rate → positioning is unclear or demand is weak

### After 5 Conversations, Ask Yourself

- Did 3+ people independently describe the same pain? → Demand likely real
- Would they pay? Did anyone name a price unprompted? → Market likely exists
- Do they already use 2+ workarounds? → Problem is acute
- Did you learn something that surprised you? → Explore it in conversations 6-10

**Decision threshold:**
- 3+ people confirm the problem AND 2+ say they'd pay → proceed to market sizing and build
- Mixed signals after 10 conversations → either pivot your hypothesis or try a different ICP segment
- Nobody cares after 10 conversations → this isn't a real problem. Pick a different idea.

### Avoiding Analysis Paralysis

5 conversations reveal 80% of what you need to know. The other 20% you learn by building and shipping. Don't wait for certainty — it never comes.

---

## Market Sizing (Napkin Math That Matters)

### Bottom-Up (The Only Method That Matters for Solo Founders)

```
1. How many potential buyers exist?
   [Industry size] × [% that match your ICP]
   Example: 500,000 US marketing agencies × 12% that are 5-20 person = 60,000

2. What will each pay annually?
   [Price point] × [12 months]
   Example: $49/month × 12 = $588/year

3. Realistic addressable market:
   [Buyers] × [Annual price] × [Capture rate]
   Example: 60,000 × $588 × 2% = $705,600/year achievable

4. Sanity check: Does that number fund the business you want?
   Solo founder needs $200K-$500K ARR to replace income + reinvest.
   If max realistic capture is $100K, the market is too small.
```

### Top-Down (Sanity Check Only)

```
TAM = Total market revenue (all possible buyers globally)
SAM = Segment you can serve (geography, vertical, size)
SOM = What you can realistically capture in 3 years

Rule of thumb: SOM is 1-5% of SAM for a new entrant.
If SOM doesn't fund your business, stop here.
```

### Volume Estimation Sources

- Government data: Census Bureau, BLS (industry counts)
- Industry reports: IBISWorld, Statista (skim free summaries)
- LinkedIn: Search ICP job titles → count results
- Job boards: Volume of relevant roles = proxy for market size
- Competitor traffic: SimilarWeb free tier → estimate active users
- Subreddits/communities: Member counts = demand signal

---

## Competitive Analysis

### Substitute Mapping

Every product competes with four types:

1. **Direct competitors** — Same solution, same audience (Basecamp vs. Asana)
2. **Indirect competitors** — Different solution, same problem (spreadsheets vs. project tool)
3. **DIY / manual process** — They do it by hand (Post-its, email threads)
4. **Do nothing** — They tolerate the pain (this is your real enemy)

### Competitor Research Template

For each direct competitor:

```
## [Competitor Name]

**What they do**: One sentence.
**Target audience**: Who they sell to.
**Pricing**: Tiers and price points.
**Strengths**: 2-3 things they do well.
**Weaknesses**: 2-3 gaps, complaints, or underserved areas.
**Positioning**: Homepage headline — how they describe themselves.
**Traffic/Scale**: Monthly visits (SimilarWeb), review count (G2/Capterra).

### Where You Win
What specific thing will you do 10x better?
```

### Research Sources

- **Pricing**: Visit their pricing page. Screenshot it.
- **Positioning**: Read their homepage headline and subheadline.
- **Weaknesses**: G2, Capterra, Product Hunt, Reddit threads, Twitter complaints.
- **Traffic**: SimilarWeb (free tier).
- **Features**: Their docs/changelog reveal what they've built and haven't.
- **Hiring**: Job postings reveal strategic direction.

### Competitive Positioning Matrix

Build a 2×2 matrix with the two dimensions your ICP cares most about:

```
Example axes:
  X: Simple ←————→ Powerful
  Y: Cheap  ←————→ Premium

Plot competitors on this grid. Find the empty quadrant. That's your positioning opportunity.
```

---

## Solo-Founder Market Fit Assessment

Score each criterion 1-5. Minimum viable total: 25/40.

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| **Pain intensity** — Hair-on-fire problem? | /5 | 5 = actively searching for a fix |
| **Willingness to pay** — Already pay for substitutes? | /5 | 5 = pay $50+/mo for something worse |
| **Reachable audience** — Can you find and contact them? | /5 | 5 = concentrated in known communities |
| **Fragmented competition** — No dominant monopoly? | /5 | 5 = many small players, no clear winner |
| **Small enough for solo** — Can one person serve this? | /5 | 5 = low support burden, self-serve viable |
| **Recurring need** — Will they use it monthly? | /5 | 5 = daily/weekly active use |
| **Your unfair advantage** — Domain expertise or distribution? | /5 | 5 = deep insider knowledge |
| **Technical feasibility** — Build core in 4-8 weeks? | /5 | 5 = well-understood, no R&D needed |

**Scoring:**
- 35-40: Exceptional fit. Move fast.
- 25-34: Viable. Validate the weak spots.
- Below 25: Reconsider. Weak markets kill good products.

---

## Distribution Vector Analysis

| Channel | Cost to Test | Time to Signal | Scalable? |
|---------|-------------|----------------|-----------|
| Cold outreach | $0 (time only) | 2-4 weeks | Somewhat |
| Communities | $0 (time only) | 1-3 months | Somewhat |
| Paid search | $200-500 | 1-2 weeks | Yes (if CAC works) |
| SEO / Content | $0 (time only) | 3-6 months | Yes |
| Directories | $0-200 | 1-2 months | Yes (passive) |
| Partnerships | $0 (time only) | 2-6 months | Yes |

**Rule:** Pick the ONE channel you can test in <30 days with <$500. Prove it works before diversifying.

---

## Buyer Leverage Check

Confirm your ICP can actually buy:

1. **Controls budget?** If they need 3 levels of approval, you lose.
2. **Below "just expense it" threshold?** ($50-100/mo for individuals, $500-1K for teams)
3. **Can adopt without IT?** Self-serve SaaS with optional SSO wins.
4. **Low switching cost?** If migration takes weeks, adoption stalls.
5. **One person gets value alone?** Network effects help growth but hurt initial adoption.

All five should be "yes" for a solo-founder SaaS.

---

## Output Format

1. Present findings in a clear document (not a slide deck).
2. Include specific numbers with sources cited.
3. Score the opportunity using the Solo-Founder Market Fit rubric.
4. End with a clear GO / CONDITIONAL / NO-GO recommendation.
5. If CONDITIONAL, name exactly what needs to be validated and how.

Overview

This skill helps founders and product teams validate markets, size opportunity, and analyze competitors before building. It focuses on practical, order-of-magnitude market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM), bottom-up revenue estimates, customer discovery, and competitive positioning. The goal is a clear recommendation: GO, CONDITIONAL, or NO-GO, backed by numbers and prioritized validation steps.

How this skill works

I guide you through early customer discovery to confirm demand, then produce a bottom-up market size using realistic capture rates and price assumptions. I map competitors into direct, indirect, DIY, and do-nothing substitutes and score the opportunity with a Solo-Founder Market Fit rubric. The output is a concise findings document with sources, numeric estimates, and an explicit recommendation plus next-step experiments if needed.

When to use it

  • You need to know whether a business idea can fund a solo-founder SaaS.
  • Before building an MVP or spending dev time on an unvalidated problem.
  • When deciding between multiple target customer segments or verticals.
  • To benchmark competitors, pricing, and positioning before product design.
  • When fundraising or preparing investor materials requiring market estimates.

Best practices

  • Talk to at least 5 targeted prospects quickly; 5 convos reveal ~80% of insights.
  • Use bottom-up estimates first: count buyers × price × realistic capture rate.
  • Treat top-down TAM as a sanity check, not a plan.
  • Map substitutes beyond direct competitors (DIY and doing nothing matter).
  • Pick one distribution channel you can test in <30 days with <$500 and validate CAC.

Example use cases

  • Validate demand for a niche HR automation tool with 10 customer interviews and a landing-page test.
  • Estimate three-year SOM for a vertical SaaS using LinkedIn counts and pricing tiers.
  • Compare positioning vs competitors with a 2×2 matrix to identify an empty quadrant.
  • Decide GO/NO-GO after scoring market fit using the 8-criterion rubric.
  • Plan a $200 paid search experiment to measure signup conversion and CAC.

FAQ

How accurate are the market size numbers?

All market sizing is approximate; the aim is order-of-magnitude clarity to decide whether to proceed, not precise forecasting.

How many interviews do I need before sizing?

Start with 5 rapid interviews. If 3+ report the same pain and 2+ indicate willingness to pay, proceed to sizing and further validation.

Which sizing method should I trust?

Use bottom-up as primary for solo founders. Use top-down as a sanity check and to communicate TAM to stakeholders.

What makes a market solo-founder friendly?

High pain, willingness to pay, fragmented incumbents, reachable audience, and low support burden score highest on the rubric.