MKT.2:4.2 - Select a truthful context for comparison

Recover what the intended customer could actually do instead. Compare the contribution with those alternatives, identify the useful difference that its capabilities can support, and identify the circumstances in which that difference matters. Then choose a familiar description or category that helps the intended people interpret it without implying an unavailable result.

For example, “automated reporting platform” may invite an expectation of continuous integration and unattended reports. “Assisted file-mapping trial for periodic reports” gives a different context. Choose between them from the actual proposal and its receivers, not from which phrase sounds larger. A category can help recognition while a qualifier makes the material boundary clear.

If the customer already has an adequate alternative, determine whether the proposal offers a worthwhile difference in result, effort, access, risk or terms. It need not be unique in the world. If no worthwhile difference is supported for this situation, change the contribution, select a different appropriate situation or stop. Competitor claims and the provider’s own claims both need grounds where comparison relies on them.

Ask each relevant participant two questions: what supported difference favours this option among feasible alternatives, and what missing condition would exclude it? Use the first answer to explain preference and the second to retain the conditions for choice or supply. Classify the capability for this situation: dependable support can be a prerequisite in one acquisition and a reason to switch or renew in another.

Keep the comparison open when evidence changes. A new feasible alternative can defeat the proposed advantage without altering the product. A misunderstood category can require another explanation while the underlying contribution remains suitable.