Analyst Narrative Prep
Prep for the analyst briefing with a data-grounded narrative — your category POV, the market evidence behind it, and the proof points analysts will probe.
Product Marketing - Analyst relations
An analyst narrative your POV can defend — evidence and counters ready
3
Proof points
Thesis + counters ready
POV: consolidation. Evidence: adoption,
intent, reviews. Counter prepped.
POV: consolidation. Evidence: adoption,
intent, reviews. Counter prepped.
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| Thesis | Consolidation POV |
| Evidence | 3 cited proof points |
| Counter | Prepped + answered |
Why it lands
Analysts probe. Walking in with a thesis, three cited proof points, and a ready answer to the strongest counter-argument turns the briefing from a pitch into a credible market conversation that shapes how the analyst sees the category.
Overview
Build an analyst-briefing narrative for a category: a clear point of view backed by HG market evidence (adoption trends, intent momentum, review themes), the competitive context analysts will reference, and the proof points to have ready — so PMM walks into the briefing with a defensible story.
Use cases
Briefings that shape the analyst's view
An evidence-backed POV with anticipated counters prepped lets PMM influence how the analyst frames the category — not just defend the product.
No surprise questions
Naming the strongest counter-argument in advance and preparing the evidence means the hard analyst question is one you've already answered.
View workflow prompt
# Analyst Narrative Prep
## Parameters
- `{{category}}` *(required)* — The category the briefing covers. Example: `data observability`
- `{{our_pov}}` *(required)* — Our point of view to defend. Example: `the market is consolidating around unified platforms`
- `{{analyst_firm}}` *(optional)* — The analyst firm/framing. Example: `Gartner Market Guide`
## Purpose
Build an analyst-briefing narrative defending {{our_pov}} on the {{category}} (framed for {{analyst_firm}}), backed by HG market evidence and armed with the proof points analysts will probe — so PMM's POV survives the briefing's scrutiny.
## Process
1. **State the POV** — restate {{our_pov}} as a crisp thesis the briefing will defend.
2. **Marshal evidence** — `company_technographic` (adoption supporting the thesis), `list_intent_topics` + `intent_category` (demand momentum), `get_product_reviews` (buyer sentiment) — each as a proof point.
3. **Anticipate counters** — name the strongest counter-argument an analyst would raise and the evidence that addresses it.
4. **Competitive context** — frame where we sit relative to the named competitors in the analyst's likely mental model.
5. **Narrative** — assemble an exec-grade briefing narrative: thesis -> evidence -> competitive frame -> ask.
## Output Format
Markdown with:
- `# Analyst Narrative — {{category}}`
- `## Thesis` (our POV, crisp)
- `## Evidence` (proof points, each cited)
- `## Anticipated Counters` (and our responses)
- `## Competitive Frame`
- `## The Ask` (what we want the analyst to take away)
- `## Citations`
## Quality Checklist
- Each proof point is cited to an HG signal
- The strongest counter-argument is named and addressed, not avoided
- Competitive framing is honest about where we sit
- Prose is exec/analyst-grade