Positioning and segmentation · Positioning

Choose a positioning for the clinic scheduler

Pick the alternative to position against and the category to claim for a $99 clinic scheduler, with share × win-rate arithmetic and the value in dollars.

designmediumExercise · 3 min · 10 of 60

On this page

A six-person team has to choose one alternative to sell against and one category to sit in, and every page of copy, sales slide and channel after it inherits the choice. The method is Dunford's; the numbers are below.

The situation

A six-person team sells scheduling software to clinics with one to five practitioners: 400 paying clinics at $99 a month, 2% monthly churn. Prospects arrive from three places: 45% run on paper and phone, 30% use a general booking tool at $29 a month, and 25% use a practice-management suite at $400 a month. Demo win rates against each are 55%, 35% and 10%.

The feature cited in 60% of reviews is the reminder sequence, which texts every patient before the appointment and lets them confirm, cancel or rebook by reply. It cuts no-shows from 12% to 5%. The booking tool sends no reminders; the suite sends one email. A two-practitioner clinic books 40 appointments a day at $80 each, over 22 working days a month.

The homepage today says "Simple scheduling for clinics", and the founder wants it replaced before the next newsletter campaign.

The question

Which competitive alternative do you position against, and which market category do you claim? Defend both with the numbers.

A strong answer · Rubric · Where answers go wrong

Write your answer first, then open

A strong answer

A what-we-claim decision: it sets which demos the team wins.

Wins per 100 prospects are share × win rate: paper and phone 45 × 55% = 24.75, call it 25; the booking tool 30 × 35% = 10.5; the suite 25 × 10% = 2.5. Of about 38 wins, 25 come from paper and phone, so that is the alternative to position against.

The unique attribute against it is the reminder sequence the reviews single out. Its value in the buyer's units: 12% − 5% of 40 appointments is 2.8 fewer no-shows a day, × $80 × 22 days ≈ $4,900 a month recovered, against $99.

The category is "no-show reduction for small clinics". "Scheduling" invites the $29 comparison, where $99 is 3.4 times the price and the buyer compares calendars. "Practice management" invites a feature count against the $400 suite, where the team wins one demo in ten. Against the booking tool the defence is the difference: $70 a month more for $4,900 recovered. The suite is left alone, since doubling a 10% win rate adds only 2.5 wins per 100.

The line: for clinics with one to five practitioners that lose one appointment in eight to no-shows, reminders patients answer by text cut no-shows from 12% to 5%, about $4,900 a month for $99; unlike phoning patients, nobody at the front desk has to do it.

The cost is a lower ceiling: the team stops chasing suite users. The answer changes if the booking tool ships reminders, because the attribute stops being unique against 30% of prospects and the claim has to rest on proof, each clinic's own measured no-show rate.

Rubric

Names one alternative and one category, and says why each of the other candidates loses.
Computes wins per 100 prospects as share × win rate for all three alternatives.
States the value in the buyer's units, recovered appointments a month in dollars, not as a feature.
Defends against the booking tool with the price gap set against the value.
Says what would make the answer wrong, naming the event: the booking tool shipping reminders.
Claims only what the product can prove, the 12% to 5% measured on the clinic's own appointments.

Where answers go wrong

"Position it as the easiest scheduling tool." It puts the product on the $29 tool's ladder, never mentions no-shows, and has no number in its favour. It loses on price by construction, as Ries and Trout's ladder predicts.

"Position against the suite: those clinics already pay $400, so each win is worth four times as much." A clinic that switches pays $99, not $400. At a 10% win rate each point is worth 0.25 wins per 100 prospects against 0.45 for paper and phone, and closing the gap means a feature race the product cannot win.

"Create a new category: AI-powered patient engagement." It asks owners to learn a phrase they do not use, when they already count no-shows in money, and "AI-powered" is nothing a buyer can check in a two-week trial. A reviewer marks it as a category chosen for how it sounds, not for the comparison it sets up.