Creative — Positioning Explorer

Ensure the visual language is a deliberate expression of business positioning, not arbitrary taste. Every color, type, and imagery choice should be defensible by a strategic reason. This bridges the gap between "what we are in the market" and "what we look like".

When to use

• Moving from strategy/positioning work into brand expression.
• The visuals feel disconnected from how the company wants to be seen.
• You need to justify aesthetic choices to founders/stakeholders with reasons, not opinions.
• Before creative-moodboard/creative-explore to seed them with strategic constraints.

When NOT to use

• Positioning is undefined — that's a strategy problem, not a visual one; surface it first.
• You just need options to look at fast → creative-explore.
• Merchandising a specific offer → creative-offer.

Inputs (ask only what's missing)

• Category + how they want to be seen within it.
• Core differentiator — the one thing that's true of them and not competitors.
• Who it's FOR and who it's AGAINST (the foil — the incumbent/alternative they beat).
• Price/quality tier.

Workflow

1. Write the positioning statement: "For {audience}, {brand} is the {category} that {differentiator}, unlike {foil}."
2. Derive visual implications from each part. Premium-vs-cheap → restraint, whitespace, craft cues. Approachable-vs-intimidating → warmth, rounded forms, human imagery. Each rule traces to a positioning reason.
3. Produce a visual language spec: palette logic, type logic, imagery rules, tone, and explicit do-nots (what would accidentally signal the foil's positioning).
4. Generate 2-3 proof images with your image tool showing the positioning made visible. Save to ./creative/positioning/<NN>.png.
5. Pass the spec forward as hard constraints to creative-moodboard/creative-explore.

Worked example

A project-management tool positioned against "bloated enterprise suites".

positioning: "For small teams, Tako is the project tool that stays out of your
way, unlike heavyweight enterprise suites."

visual implications:
- palette: 1 accent + lots of neutral (because "stays out of the way" → restraint;
  a rainbow UI would signal the bloated foil)
- type: one humanist sans, generous spacing (calm, not dense dashboards)
- imagery: real small-team moments, not stock boardrooms (audience = small teams)
- tone: plain, confident, short
- DO NOT: dense feature-grid heroes, navy "enterprise" gradients, jargon — all read as the foil
proof: [./creative/positioning/01-restraint.png][./creative/positioning/02-team.png]

Quality bar

• A one-sentence positioning statement exists and the user agrees with it.
• Every visual rule has a "because {positioning reason}" — no orphan aesthetic choices.
• The do-not list explicitly names what would signal the wrong position.
• Proof images visibly embody the position (a viewer could infer the strategy from them).

Common pitfalls

• Taste-for-taste's-sake — a rule with no positioning reason doesn't belong here.
• Inventing the strategy — extract it from the user; if it's missing, say so and stop.
• Ignoring the foil — positioning is relational; the do-nots come from what the foil looks like.
• Vague implications — "modern and clean" isn't a rule; "single accent, 60% whitespace" is.

Handoff

Visual language spec → creative-moodboard (expand to territories) or creative-explore (concrete directions within the spec). The spec is a constraint, not a suggestion, for everything downstream.

Tooling

Proof images need a text-to-image tool. Without one, deliver the positioning statement + visual language spec + do-nots; that alone is a usable strategic artifact.