Perceptual Map Template for Founders (With Example)
A perceptual map template gives you a ready-made grid: two blank axes to fill with buyer-relevant criteria, a slot for every competitor and substitute, and a place to mark where you land. Fill it in from customer perception, not opinion, and the open space shows itself.
Quick Answer: Use a perceptual map template by naming two independent axes buyers actually decide on, listing every alternative (including doing nothing), placing each competitor from customer research, marking your own dot, then reading the empty regions for space you can credibly own. Avoid price-versus-quality axes — they correlate and fake the gaps.
Starting from a blank grid is where most positioning exercises stall. This template removes the blank-page problem: it hands you the fields to fill, prompts for choosing axes that matter, and a worked example you can copy the shape of. It is the fill-in-the-blanks companion to the broader perceptual map positioning guide — use that for the theory, use this to actually build one.
The template: axes, competitive set, and plotting grid
The template has three moving parts you fill in order: two axes, a list of everyone the buyer might choose instead of you, and the plotted dots that reveal open space. Name the parts first; the picture comes after.
Copy the table below into a doc or whiteboard and fill the middle column. The right column shows a hypothetical software example so you can see the shape of a good answer — the names and placements are illustrative, not researched.
| Template field | What to fill in | Example (hypothetical) |
|---|---|---|
| Axis 1 (horizontal) | One buyer decision criterion, written as a spectrum with two named ends | Setup effort: "hands-on DIY" → "done for you" |
| Axis 2 (vertical) | A second, independent criterion buyers trade off against the first | Scope: "general-purpose" → "built for your niche" |
| Competitive set | Every alternative a buyer weighs, including substitutes and "do nothing" | Two category rivals, a spreadsheet workaround, staying manual |
| Perception source | Where each placement comes from — research, not memory | A round of customer interviews plus mining public reviews |
| Your own dot | Where customers actually place you today, not where you wish you sat | Mid-DIY, leaning niche |
| Whitespace read | The empty region, and whether real demand and your credibility both back it | "Done-for-you + niche" corner looks open |
Takeaway: the template is only as honest as the perception-source line — if the dots come from a founder's memory instead of customer research, the map just reflects your assumptions back at you. For the full step-by-step build behind each field, see how to create a perceptual map.
How to fill in the axis prompts (and dodge the price-quality trap)
Choose each axis by running it through two prompts: does the buyer actually decide on this, and does it spread competitors apart instead of bunching them on one line? An axis that fails either test wastes half your grid.
Work through these prompts for every candidate axis before you commit:
| Axis prompt | What a good answer surfaces | Example answer (hypothetical) |
|---|---|---|
| Would a buyer bring this up unprompted? | A real decision criterion, not a trait you wish mattered | "It has to work for agencies, not generic teams" |
| Can a customer rate every rival on it? | A spectrum people can place brands along, not a yes/no label | Rank each tool from DIY to fully managed |
| Do brands actually differ on it? | Spread across the axis, so gaps can appear | Rivals cluster at DIY; the managed end is thin |
| Is it independent of the other axis? | Two dimensions measuring different things, not the same thing twice | Setup effort and niche focus don't track together |
The price-versus-quality pair is the trap to avoid. In most categories the two correlate — cheap reads as lower quality, premium as higher — so nearly every brand slides onto a diagonal and the two off-diagonal corners sit empty for structural reasons, not market ones. The tempting "high quality, low price" gap is usually a mirage created by the correlation, not an unmet need.
Pick two axes that genuinely move independently and the fake gaps disappear. Pressure-testing whether buyers truly weigh an axis is exactly the kind of assumption Edmired is built to help you check before you bet a launch on it.
A plotted example: a hypothetical project-tracking category
Here is the template filled in for an invented project-tracking market, so you can see how dots turn into a whitespace read. Every placement below is made up to illustrate the method — treat it as a worked shape, not market data.
The axes are setup effort (DIY on the left, done-for-you on the right) and scope (general-purpose at the bottom, niche-specific at the top). Plotting the buyer's real options qualitatively:
| Alternative | Setup effort (horizontal) | Scope (vertical) | What its position signals |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incumbent suite | DIY, heavy config | General-purpose | Crowded bottom-left with other big tools |
| Lightweight app | Low-effort DIY | General-purpose | Also bottom-left — easy but generic |
| Spreadsheet workaround | Pure DIY | General-purpose | Far bottom-left; the true budget default |
| Doing nothing | No setup | No scope | Off-grid — the status quo you must beat |
| Your product | Guided setup | Niche-specific | Upper-right, where few dots land |
Reading the grid: the bottom-left is jammed with general-purpose DIY tools, and the upper-right — "done-for-you and built for your niche" — is nearly empty. That empty corner is a hypothesis, not a trophy. Before betting on it, confirm buyers actually want managed-plus-niche and will believe you can deliver it. Empty because it is hard to build and defend is promising; empty because nobody wants it is a graveyard.
A structured sweep of the field is what fills these dots honestly — the complete competitor analysis playbook gives you the raw inputs this grid turns into a picture.
Adapting the axes for different markets
Swap the axes to fit how your buyers actually decide — the grid stays the same, but the two spectrums change with the category. The template is a frame; the axis pair is what you tailor.
Some illustrative starting pairs by market type:
- B2B SaaS: ease of setup versus depth of control, or breadth of platform versus depth in one workflow — buyers trade "does everything" against "nails my one job."
- Consumer apps: simplicity versus power, or private-and-focused versus social-and-connected — the tension most consumer choices actually hinge on.
- Services and agencies: boutique specialist versus full-service generalist, or high-touch versus productized-and-scalable.
- Physical products: everyday-durable versus premium-designed, or all-in-one versus modular.
The rule holds across all of them: pick two things buyers genuinely weigh against each other where "more" is not automatically "better." When you find a real tension buyers live with — not a dimension where everyone wants the maximum — the map earns its keep and the gaps it shows are worth chasing.
Key Takeaways
- The template is three parts: two buyer-relevant axes, a full list of alternatives including "do nothing," and plotted dots that expose open space.
- Fill the perception line from research, not memory — customer interviews, survey ratings, and review mining, or the map just mirrors your own assumptions.
- Axes must pass two tests: buyers actually decide on them, and competitors spread out along them rather than bunching on one line.
- Never use price versus quality as your two axes — they correlate, collapse brands onto a diagonal, and manufacture empty corners that look like gaps but aren't.
- A worked example is a shape to copy, not data to trust — the hypothetical placements show the method; your real dots must come from your own buyers.
- Empty space is a hypothesis, not a prize — a corner is only worth claiming when real demand backs it and customers will believe you standing there.
- Adapt the axis pair to your market while keeping the grid identical; the frame is fixed, the two spectrums are what you tailor.
Frequently Asked Questions
What two axes should I use on a perceptual map template?
Pick two attributes your buyers genuinely decide on and that spread competitors apart — for example ease of setup versus depth of control. Avoid price versus quality, because they correlate and fake empty corners. The best pair is a real tension where "more" of either isn't automatically better, so brands actually scatter across the grid instead of lining up on a diagonal.
Can I make a perceptual map template in a spreadsheet or slides?
Yes. A perceptual map needs no special tool — a slide with two lines and labeled dots, or a spreadsheet scatter chart, works fine. The hard part is never the drawing; it is sourcing honest placements from customer research. Start with the fill-in table above, then plot the dots wherever you can move and label them easily.
How many competitors should a perceptual map template include?
Include every alternative the buyer actually weighs, which is usually a handful of dots: your direct rivals, one or two substitutes that solve the problem differently, and "do nothing." Too few and you flatter yourself; too many and the grid turns to noise. If a name never comes up in real buyer conversations, leave it off the map.