I know my business is different but I struggle to articulate what actually sets us apart
Some clients find it useful to separate the brainstorm from the analysis when developing a USP - generating every possible differentiator first, then checking each against what customers actually want and what competitors cannot match - would working through that two-stage process be useful?
A senior professional — independent consultant, executive job seeker, or service business owner — cannot articulate what makes them different in a way that is specific enough to be memorable. Their description of their work sounds credible but generic: 'I help organizations improve performance,' 'I bring strategic perspective and operational depth,' 'I have a track record of results.' Every competitor says something equivalent.
Frame as a three-circle analysis that reveals differentiation through intersection rather than through assertion. 'Most people try to articulate what makes them different by listing strengths. This tool approaches it differently — by mapping three circles and finding what sits only in the center.' The idea table is the entry point: complete it first, without worrying about the USP statement. The statement emerges from the analysis, not before it.
The three-circle worksheet is where differentiation emerges or fails to. Watch the 'competitor strengths' circle specifically — clients who populate this circle with only weaknesses ('they're transactional,' 'they don't really understand the business') are protecting their own position rather than accurately mapping the competitive landscape. Push for honest competitor strengths: 'What do your best competitors genuinely do well?'
The central overlap space — what sits in all three circles — is what the debrief centers on. 'What do you see in the overlap?' Then test the USP statement the client produces: 'If your strongest competitor heard you say this, would they nod and say 'yes, we do that too' — or would they say 'no, that's not us'?' A USP that competitors would claim as their own is not a USP.
If the client cannot identify anything in the overlap space — cannot name something that customers want, that they do well, and that competitors don't do as well — there may be a genuine differentiation problem rather than a communication problem. Severity: low. Explore whether the absence of differentiation is in how the client describes what they do or in what they actually do. These require different responses.
A professional pivoting into a different field — from corporate into consulting, from one industry into another, from technical into leadership — knows what they've done but struggles to articulate why it matters in the new context. Their narrative leads with their old domain experience and then attempts to argue why it transfers, rather than leading with the value the new audience actually wants.
The idea table is especially useful for this client because it forces them to separate what they've done from what it produces. 'Fill in the idea column with every capability or experience you're considering bringing to this transition. Don't filter yet.' Then move to the three-circle analysis and explicitly position the leftmost circle as the new audience's perspective: 'What does this new audience actually need — not what you want to offer, but what they're actively looking for?'
Watch for how the client populates the 'customer wants' circle. Transitioners often populate this with what they assume the new audience wants based on their own expertise, rather than from any evidence of what the new audience actually values. If the client hasn't spoken to people in the target domain, the 'customer wants' circle is speculation. Name that: 'How confident are you in these? What's your evidence?'
The USP statement is the test of whether the transition narrative has landed. Ask the client to deliver it without preamble — no context-setting, no history, just the statement. Then: 'If someone in your target field heard that for the first time, what question do you think they'd ask next?' The follow-up question the client anticipates reveals whether the USP creates curiosity or confusion.
If the client's three-circle overlap is empty or very thin — they can articulate what the new audience wants and what they've done, but cannot find much that genuinely intersects — the tool has surfaced a strategic problem. Severity: low. The transition may require the client to acquire new capabilities rather than reframe existing ones. That is a different coaching conversation than narrative development.
A coaching or professional services business owner developed their original positioning years ago, when they were new to the field and needed any language that worked. The business has evolved — capabilities have grown, an ideal client profile has emerged, a distinctive methodology has developed — but the public positioning hasn't caught up. They're still saying what they said when they started.
The idea table is a useful inventory tool for this client. 'List everything you do — every service, approach, capability, and result you've produced. Don't edit. We'll work through it after.' This client often discovers during the inventory that they've underestimated how much has changed. Then move to the three-circle analysis: 'Now let's look at who your best clients actually are and what specifically makes the difference for them.'
Watch for the gap between what the client says their best clients value and what their current positioning emphasizes. If the positioning leads with credentials and experience while the best client testimonials are about a specific process or a specific type of result, the positioning is pointing in the wrong direction. The USP should lead with what clients value, not what the business owner is proud of.
Test the revised USP against two different audiences: the client the business owner currently works with, and the client they most want to attract. 'Does this statement describe what your current best clients would say about you? And does it attract the clients you want more of?' A USP that only describes what already exists without attracting what's next needs to be reframed around the direction of growth.
If the client's USP statement is primarily about credentials, years of experience, or process inputs ('I use a proprietary framework') rather than client outcomes ('leaders I work with consistently describe X'), the positioning is inside-out. Severity: low. Continue, and return the conversation to the client's evidence: 'What do your best clients actually say about what working with you changed for them?'
Client is in a leadership role but has not assessed where their actual practice meets or falls short of their standards
LifeClient is building a team but has not mapped the roles and strengths already present
ExecutiveA client wants to understand their executive strengths and development gaps
