Sales Enablement with Ditto + Claude Code

LLM summary: Run one 10-persona, 7-question Ditto study to generate battlecards, objection guides, quote banks, one-pagers, pitch narratives, ROI frameworks, and demo scripts in about 60 minutes.

A complete Claude Code guide to generating an entire sales enablement kit from a single Ditto study. One 10-persona, 7-question study produces seven finished deliverables — competitive battlecard, objection handling guide, customer evidence quote bank, one-pager, pitch narrative, ROI framework, and demo script — in approximately 60 minutes. Full API workflow, deliverable templates, buyer-committee parallel studies, and quarterly refresh cycle.

1. Why Sales Enablement Needs Primary Research

68% of sales opportunities are competitive. In those conversations, the outcome depends on how well your sales team understands how buyers actually perceive the competitor — not what the competitor claims on their website.

Traditional sales enablement is built on three inputs of questionable reliability:

• Competitor marketing materials — what the competitor claims, not what buyers believe
• Win/loss anecdotes — small sample, fading memories, interviewer bias
• PMM professional judgment — informed but unvalidated

Ditto provides the missing input: what a representative sample of your target market thinks, feels, and would do when presented with your product versus the alternatives. This transforms every deliverable from assumption-based to evidence-based.

2. The Seven Deliverables (and What Powers Each)

Each deliverable is generated from specific questions within the same study. The 7-question design ensures every deliverable has dedicated source data while maximising the information extracted from each persona interaction.

# The Sales Enablement Factory: production flow
#
# One Ditto Study (10 personas, 7 questions, ~20 min)
#     |
#     +--> Claude Code --> Competitive Battlecard      (5 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> Objection Handling Guide    (5 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> Customer Evidence Quotes    (3 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> One-Pager                   (5 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> Pitch Narrative              (10 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> ROI Framework                (5 min)
#     +--> Claude Code --> Demo Script                  (5 min)
#
# Total: ~60 minutes from zero to complete sales kit
# Traditional equivalent: 3-6 weeks

3. The 7-Question Sales Enablement Study Design

These seven questions are specifically engineered so that each does double or triple duty across deliverables. The sequence matters: earlier answers provide context that enriches later responses.

Why This Question Sequence Works

• Q1 establishes the baseline. Before you mention your product or competitors, you learn how personas experience the problem. This grounds everything that follows.
• Q2 is the head-to-head question. Named competitors force specific, comparative responses. Vague questions ("What do you look for?") produce vague answers.
• Q3 introduces your product. The split between excitement and scepticism is the single most diagnostic response in the study. High excitement + high scepticism means the value prop resonates but trust barriers exist. High excitement + low scepticism means the sales team has an easy path.
• Q4 forces feature prioritisation. "The ONE thing" constraint produces clarity that "What features matter?" never does. This directly determines the demo opening.
• Q5 reveals commercial timing. Switching triggers tell sales when to reach out. Blockers tell sales what objections to prepare for.
• Q6 quantifies the value equation. Both sides of the ROI: what they'd pay (value perception) and what they'd pay to avoid (cost of inaction).
• Q7 identifies the closing evidence. The proof buyers demand becomes the proof your sales team must provide. If 7/10 want a case study from their industry, that is a mandate, not a suggestion.

4. Complete API Workflow: Study to Sales Kit

Full API sequence. Every command is copy-paste ready. The output of this workflow is 70 data points (10 personas × 7 questions) plus Ditto's completion analysis — the raw material for all seven deliverables.

Prerequisites

• Ditto API key (see installation guide)
• Your product name, category, and 1–2 primary competitors
• Target buyer profile (ICP demographics)
• The 7 questions customised with your specific context

Step 1: Create the Research Group

curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-groups/recruit" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name": "Sales Enablement - [Your Product] vs [Competitor] - [Date]",
    "description": "[ICP description: role, seniority, company context]",
    "group_size": 10,
    "filters": {
      "country": "USA",
      "age_min": 28,
      "age_max": 55,
      "employment": "employed",
      "education": "bachelors"
    },
    "sampling_method": "random",
    "deduplicate": true
  }'

# Response - SAVE THE UUID:
{
  "uuid": "grp-abc123-...",
  "name": "Sales Enablement - Acme vs Mixpanel - Feb 2026",
  "agents": [ ... ]  // 10 persona objects
}

Step 2: Create the Research Study

curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-studies" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name": "Sales Enablement: [Your Product] vs [Competitor] - [Date]",
    "research_group_uuid": "GROUP_UUID_FROM_STEP_1"
  }'

# Response - SAVE THE STUDY ID:
{
  "id": "study-xyz789",
  "name": "Sales Enablement: Acme vs Mixpanel - Feb 2026",
  "status": "active"
}

Step 3: Ask Questions (Sequentially)

# Question 1: Pain Points & Current Solutions
curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-studies/STUDY_ID/questions" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "question": "You'\''re evaluating solutions in [category] for your team. What'\''s your biggest pain point right now? Walk me through how you currently solve it."
  }'

# Response:
{
  "job_ids": ["job-001", "job-002", ... "job-010"]
}

Step 4: Poll for Responses

# Poll each job ID until status = "finished"
curl -s -X GET "https://app.askditto.io/v1/jobs/JOB_ID" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

# Response when complete:
{
  "id": "job-001",
  "status": "finished",
  "result": {
    "answer": "The biggest pain point for our team is..."
  }
}

# Recommended data structure:
{
  "study_id": "study-xyz789",
  "product": "Acme Analytics",
  "competitor": "Mixpanel",
  "date": "2026-02-06",
  "personas": [
    {"id": "agent-001", "name": "Sarah M.", "age": 34, "role": "Product Manager"},
    // ... all 10
  ],
  "questions": [
    {
      "number": 1,
      "text": "You're evaluating solutions in...",
      "responses": [
        {"persona_id": "agent-001", "answer": "..."},
        // ... all 10 responses
      ]
    },
    // ... all 7 questions
  ]
}

Repeat Steps 3–4 for all 7 questions.

Step 5: Complete the Study

curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-studies/STUDY_ID/complete" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json"

This triggers Ditto's analysis engine: overall summary, key segments, divergences, shared mindsets, and follow-up suggestions. Poll the returned job IDs until complete. This analysis provides additional material for your deliverables.

Step 6: Get the Share Link

curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-studies/STUDY_ID/share" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json"

# Response:
{
  "url": "https://app.askditto.io/organization/studies/shared/xyz123"
}

5. Deliverable 1: Competitive Battlecard

The battlecard is the most-used enablement asset. It must be one page, scannable in 60 seconds during a live call, and accurate enough that reps trust it with their deals.

Source Data

Generation Template

## [Your Product] vs [Competitor] — Competitive Battlecard
### Updated: [Date] | Source: Ditto Study [ID] | [X] Personas

---

### Why We Win
1. **[Theme 1]** — "[Exact persona language]" (cited by X/10)
2. **[Theme 2]** — "[Exact persona language]" (cited by X/10)
3. **[Theme 3]** — "[Exact persona language]" (cited by X/10)

### Competitor Strengths (and How to Respond)
| Their Strength | How to Respond |
|----------------|----------------|
| [Strength 1] (cited by X/10) | "That's true. Here's how we approach it differently..." |
| [Strength 2] (cited by X/10) | "We hear that. What we've found is..." |

### Landmine Questions
- "Have you asked [Competitor] about [weakness area]? Worth understanding before you commit."
- "What does [Competitor] pricing look like at [scale trigger]? Ask them to walk you through that."
- "Can your team actually [claimed capability], or will you need [hidden dependency]?"

### Quick Dismisses
| When They Say... | You Say... |
|------------------|------------|
| "[Competitor claim 1]" | "[1-2 sentence rebuttal from Q3/Q5 scepticism]" |
| "[Competitor claim 2]" | "[1-2 sentence rebuttal]" |

### Switching Triggers (When to Attack)
- [Trigger 1] (e.g., "competitor raised prices") — cited by X/10
- [Trigger 2] (e.g., "product reliability issues") — cited by X/10
- [Trigger 3] (e.g., "team outgrew the tool") — cited by X/10

### Proof Points Required
- [Proof type 1] (cited by X/10 as most convincing)
- [Proof type 2] (cited by X/10)

---
*Source: Ditto synthetic research, [X] personas, [demographic description]*
*Study link: [share URL with ?utm_source=ce]*

6. Deliverable 2: Objection Handling Guide

Every scepticism response from Q3, every blocker from Q5, and every proof requirement from Q7 is an objection your sales team will face. The guide pairs each objection with an evidence-backed response.

Extraction Process

1. Collect all scepticism/concern responses from Q3, Q5, Q6, and Q7
2. Categorise by objection type: price, switching cost, security/compliance, feature gap, vendor viability, learning curve, ROI timeline
3. Rank by frequency: objections cited by 5+ personas are primary; 2–4 are secondary
4. Draft response for each: acknowledge the concern, provide evidence, suggest a next step

Generation Template

## Objection Handling Guide: [Your Product]
### Updated: [Date] | Source: Ditto Study [ID]

---

### Primary Objections (cited by 5+ personas)

**OBJECTION: "[Exact concern language from persona]"**
- Category: [Price / Switching / Security / Feature / Viability / Learning Curve]
- Frequency: Cited by X/10 personas
- Root cause: [What's really driving this concern]
- Response: "[Acknowledge] + [Evidence] + [Next step]"
- Supporting quote: "[Persona name], [age], [role]: '[exact quote]'"
- Resolution trigger: "[What convinced hesitant personas]"

**OBJECTION: "[Next concern]"**
- ...

---

### Secondary Objections (cited by 2-4 personas)

**OBJECTION: "[Concern]"**
- ...

---

### Objection Response Framework

For ANY objection not listed above, follow this structure:
1. **Acknowledge:** "That's a fair concern. Let me address it directly."
2. **Evidence:** "X out of 10 buyers we researched shared this concern.
   Here's what we found..."
3. **Story:** "A similar team at [company/industry] had the same worry.
   They [specific resolution]."
4. **Next step:** "Would it help if we [specific proof point from Q7]?"

7. Deliverable 3: Customer Evidence Quote Bank

Every persona response is a potential quote. Claude Code curates the best ones, organised by theme, with full demographic context.

Curation Criteria

Select quotes that are:

• Specific — "I'd switch if implementation took less than 2 weeks" beats "I want easy implementation"
• Vivid — memorable phrasing that sounds like a real person, not marketing copy
• Attributable — include persona demographic context (name, age, role, location)
• Theme-aligned — organised by use case so sales reps can find the right quote for the right meeting

Generation Template

## Customer Evidence Quote Bank: [Your Product]
### [X] curated quotes from [X] personas | Updated: [Date]

---

### Theme: Value & ROI
- "[Quote about value perception]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q6 | Use: Pricing conversations, ROI discussions

- "[Quote about cost savings]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q5 | Use: ROI framework support

### Theme: Competitive Differentiation
- "[Quote about why they'd choose you over competitor]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q2 | Use: Competitive deals, battlecard reinforcement

### Theme: Pain Points & Frustrations
- "[Vivid description of current problem]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q1 | Use: Pitch opening, problem validation

### Theme: Product Excitement
- "[What excites them about your product]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q3 | Use: One-pager, website copy, social proof

### Theme: Feature Priorities
- "[What they'd use first and why]"
  — [Name], [Age], [Role], [Location]
  Source: Q4 | Use: Demo script, feature marketing

### Statistical Claims (aggregated)
- "[X] out of [Y] said [finding]" — Source: Q[N]
- "[X] out of [Y] cited [finding]" — Source: Q[N]
- "[X] out of [Y] would [action]" — Source: Q[N]

8. Deliverable 4: One-Pager

The one-pager describes your product in the language customers use, not the language your product team uses. Every word comes from persona responses.

Source Data

• Problem statement: Q1 pain points, using the most common frustration language
• Solution description: Q3 excitement responses ("What excites you most?")
• Key benefits: Q4 hero feature + Q3 top excitement themes
• Proof points: Q7 (what evidence they need) + best quotes from quote bank

Generation Template

## [Your Product]: [Customer-Language Tagline from Q3]

### The Problem
[1-2 sentences using the exact frustration language from Q1.
Use the most frequently cited pain point. Include a data point:
"X out of 10 [target buyers] told us [pain point]."]

### The Solution
[1-2 sentences describing your product using the excitement
language from Q3. Not feature descriptions — outcome descriptions.
"Instead of [pain], you get [outcome]."]

### Why It Matters
- **[Benefit 1]** — [Customer language from Q3/Q4] (cited by X/10)
- **[Benefit 2]** — [Customer language from Q3/Q4] (cited by X/10)
- **[Benefit 3]** — [Customer language from Q3/Q4] (cited by X/10)

### The Evidence
"[Best persona quote about your product]"
— [Name], [Age], [Role]

[X] out of [Y] [target buyers] said [headline finding from study].

### Next Steps
- [Primary CTA from Q7: whatever proof type they demanded most]
- [Secondary CTA]

---
*Based on research with [X] [demographic description]*

9. Deliverable 5: Pitch Narrative (StoryBrand Framework)

The pitch narrative follows the StoryBrand framework (Donald Miller): a customer has a problem, meets a guide, receives a plan, takes action, avoids failure, and achieves success. Every element is populated with study data.

StoryBrand → Study Data Mapping

Generation Template

## Pitch Narrative: [Your Product]
### StoryBrand Structure | Source: Ditto Study [ID]

---

### THE CHARACTER
[Composite buyer from personas]:
"You're a [role] at a [company type]. Every [time period], you face
[Q1 pain point]. You've tried [Q1 current solutions], but [Q1
frustration with current approach]."

### THE PROBLEM
- **External:** [The situation — Q1 pain, stated factually]
- **Internal:** [The frustration — Q1 emotional language]
- **Philosophical:** [Why this shouldn't be the case]
- **Stakes:** "[Q5: What happens if nothing changes for 12 months]"

### THE GUIDE
"We built [Your Product] because [positioning reason]. [X] out of
[Y] buyers told us the #1 thing they wanted was [Q4 hero feature].
That's exactly what we do."

### THE PLAN
1. **Step 1:** [Q4 hero feature — what they'd experience first]
2. **Step 2:** [Q7 proof — the evidence that builds confidence]
3. **Step 3:** [Q3 excitement outcome — the result they want]

### THE CALL TO ACTION
"[Q7: The specific proof they said they'd need.
E.g., 'See a 15-minute demo with your own data']"

### AVOID FAILURE (Proactive Objection Handling)
"You might be thinking: '[Q3 scepticism / Q5 blocker].'
Here's how we address that: [Evidence-backed response]."

### SUCCESS
"Instead of [Q1 pain], you get [Q3 excitement].
[Best persona quote about the outcome they want.]"

10. Deliverable 6: ROI Framework

The ROI framework quantifies the value of your product using the buyer's own framing. It pairs cost-of-inaction data from Q5 with willingness-to-pay data from Q6.

Generation Template

## ROI Framework: [Your Product]
### Source: Ditto Study [ID] | [X] Personas

---

### Cost of Status Quo (Annual)
[From Q1 and Q5: what are they spending in time, money, and
frustration on the current approach?]

| Cost Category | Estimated Annual Impact | Source |
|---------------|------------------------|--------|
| Time wasted on [manual process] | [X] hours/week × [rate] = $[amount] | Q1: [X]/10 cited this |
| Revenue lost to [inefficiency] | $[amount] | Q5: "[persona quote about cost]" |
| Risk of [consequence] | $[amount] | Q5: "[persona quote about stakes]" |
| **Total cost of inaction** | **$[total]** | |

### Investment Required
| Component | Cost |
|-----------|------|
| Annual licence | $[your pricing] |
| Implementation | $[estimate] |
| Training | $[estimate] |
| **Total investment** | **$[total]** |

### Value Delivered (from study data)
- **Primary benefit:** [Q4 hero feature outcome, quantified]
  "[Persona quote: 'This would save me X hours per week']"
- **Secondary benefit:** [Q3 excitement, quantified]
- **Tertiary benefit:** [Additional value from Q3/Q4]

### Payback Timeline
- **Month 1-2:** [Quick wins — what they'd see immediately]
- **Month 3-6:** [Efficiency gains — compounding benefits]
- **Month 6-12:** [Strategic outcomes — full value realisation]

### Price Sensitivity Context
- Personas said a "steal" price would be: $[Q6 data]
- Personas said "fair" price would be: $[Q6 data]
- Personas said "too expensive" starts at: $[Q6 data]
- Your actual price: $[your pricing] — positions as [steal/fair/premium]

### The Bottom Line
"For every $1 invested in [Your Product], [target buyer] gets
$[X] in return within [timeframe]. [X] out of [Y] personas
said they'd expect ROI within [Q6 timeframe]."

11. Deliverable 7: Demo Script

The demo script presents features in buyer-priority order. Q4 determines the opening. Q1 provides the scenario. Q3 identifies what excites. Q7 determines the closing evidence.

Generation Template

## Demo Script: [Your Product] for [Buyer Type]
### Feature sequence based on buyer priority | Source: Ditto Study [ID]

---

### 1. OPENING — Set Context (30 seconds)
"Based on what we've heard from [target buyers] like you, the
biggest challenge is [Q1 #1 pain point]. Sound familiar?"
[Wait for confirmation. This establishes relevance.]

### 2. HERO FEATURE — Show #1 Priority (90 seconds)
[Q4: The ONE thing personas said they'd want to see first]
"Let me show you [feature]. This is what [X] out of [Y] buyers
told us matters most."
- Demo the feature using prospect's own scenario if possible
- Show the result/benefit immediately (don't build up to it)
- Pause: "Is this the kind of thing you're looking for?"

### 3. SUPPORTING FEATURES — #2 and #3 Priorities (90 seconds)
[Q4 secondary features, connected to Q1 pain points]
"Now that you've seen [hero], let me show you how [feature 2]
addresses [Q1 pain #2]..."
- Connect each feature to a specific buyer pain
- Show features working together (not in isolation)

### 4. INTEGRATION — Daily Workflow (60 seconds)
[Q1: How they currently work — show how you fit in]
"You mentioned you currently use [Q1 current tool]. Here's
how [Your Product] integrates with that..."

### 5. SOCIAL PROOF (30 seconds)
"[Best persona quote from Q3 about excitement]"
— [Name], [Age], [Role]
[Or: "Teams like yours have seen [specific outcome]."]

### 6. PROACTIVE OBJECTION HANDLING (as needed)
[Q3 scepticism + Q5 blockers — address before they ask]
"A question we often get is [Q3 scepticism].
Here's how we handle that: [evidence-backed response]."

### 7. CLOSE — Proof & Next Step (30 seconds)
[Q7: Whatever proof type they demanded most]
"The next step most teams find useful is [Q7 #1 proof type].
Would that be helpful for you?"

---
### Feature Priority Reference (from Q4)
1. [Feature — cited by X/10 as #1 priority]
2. [Feature — cited by X/10]
3. [Feature — cited by X/10]
4. [Feature — cited by X/10]
5. [Feature — cited by X/10]

12. Advanced: Buyer Committee StudiesAdvanced

Most B2B purchases involve multiple stakeholders who care about different things. A single study produces a general-purpose sales kit. Running 3–4 parallel studies with different persona configurations produces persona-specific versions of every deliverable.

Buyer Types and Study Configuration

Parallel Study Execution

# Create all 4 groups simultaneously:
# Group 1: Economic buyers
curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-groups/recruit" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name": "Sales Enablement - Economic Buyers - [Date]",
    "description": "Finance and procurement leaders evaluating software investments",
    "group_size": 10,
    "filters": {
      "country": "USA", "age_min": 40, "age_max": 60,
      "employment": "employed", "education": "masters"
    },
    "sampling_method": "random", "deduplicate": true
  }'

# Group 2: Technical evaluators
curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-groups/recruit" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name": "Sales Enablement - Technical Evaluators - [Date]",
    "description": "IT and engineering professionals evaluating technical solutions",
    "group_size": 10,
    "filters": {
      "country": "USA", "age_min": 28, "age_max": 50,
      "employment": "employed", "education": "bachelors"
    },
    "sampling_method": "random", "deduplicate": true
  }'

# Group 3: End users
# Group 4: Executive sponsors
# ... same pattern with appropriate filters and descriptions

Create a study for each group. Ask the same 7 questions to all four studies. Run questions in parallel across studies (send Q1 to all 4 simultaneously, poll all, then Q2 to all 4, etc.).

Output: Persona-Specific Enablement

13. Worked Example: SaaS Project Management Tool

curl -s -X POST "https://app.askditto.io/v1/research-groups/recruit" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name": "Sales Enablement - FlowBoard vs Jira - Feb 2026",
    "description": "Engineering managers and directors at mid-market companies evaluating project management tools",
    "group_size": 10,
    "filters": {
      "country": "USA",
      "age_min": 30,
      "age_max": 50,
      "employment": "employed",
      "education": "bachelors"
    },
    "sampling_method": "random",
    "deduplicate": true
  }'

## FlowBoard vs Jira — Competitive Battlecard

### Why We Win
1. **Faster setup** — "I could have my team running in a day, not a month"
   (cited by 7/10)
2. **No admin overhead** — "I don't need a dedicated Jira admin"
   (cited by 6/10)
3. **Real-time sprint visibility** — "I can see where we are without
   configuring 15 dashboards" (cited by 6/10)

### Competitor Strengths (and How to Respond)
| Jira Strength | Response |
|---------------|----------|
| Larger ecosystem (6/10) | "Which integrations do you actually use daily?
   We cover the top 12. Ask Jira users how many of their 200+ they've activated." |
| More customisable (4/10) | "Customisation means configuration overhead.
   Our teams get 90% of the value in 10% of the setup time." |

### Landmine Questions
- "How much time does your team spend on Jira administration per week?"
- "When was the last time you updated your Jira workflow configuration?"
- "Can a new team member be productive in Jira on day one?"

### Quick Dismisses
| They Say | You Say |
|----------|---------|
| "Jira is the industry standard" | "Standards evolve. Jira was built for
   enterprise complexity. Your 40-person team doesn't need enterprise complexity." |
| "We've already invested in Jira" | "Migration takes 2 days with our team
   handling it. Cost of staying: ~$40K/year in admin overhead." |

### Switching Triggers
- Jira admin quits or gets reassigned (7/10 cited admin dependency)
- Team grows past the point where Jira config can keep up (5/10)
- Annual licence renewal (price comparison moment) (4/10)

### DEMO OPENING (based on Q4: hero feature)

"Let me start with the thing engineering managers tell us matters most:
knowing where your sprint stands without configuring anything.

[Show: Sprint dashboard, real-time, zero-config]

This is your sprint. Right now. No Jira query language. No custom
dashboard setup. No asking your admin to build a report.

6 out of 10 engineering managers we researched said this is the
#1 thing they want from a PM tool. Is this the kind of visibility
you're looking for?"

14. The Quarterly Refresh Cycle

Sales enablement is iterative, not one-time. Deliverables go stale as competitors evolve, buyers' concerns shift, and your own product changes. The Ditto + Claude Code refresh cycle replaces annual battlecard updates with continuous improvement.

Recommended Cadence

The Feedback Loop

# Continuous improvement cycle:
#
# Month 1: Run baseline study → Generate 7 deliverables → Distribute to sales
#     ↓
# Sales uses collateral in deals (2-4 weeks)
#     ↓
# Sales reports: "We're hearing a new objection about [X]"
#     ↓
# Month 2: Run targeted study on new objection → Update objection guide
#     ↓
# Competitive landscape shifts (competitor launches feature / raises price)
#     ↓
# Month 3: Run competitive pulse → Refresh battlecard
#     ↓
# Quarter end: Full refresh → Compare to baseline → Identify perception trends
#     ↓
# Repeat

Quarterly Trend Report

After each quarterly refresh, Claude Code compares current findings to the previous quarter:

## Competitive Trend Report: FlowBoard vs Jira
### Q1 2026 → Q2 2026

| Metric | Q1 | Q2 | Trend |
|--------|----|----|-------|
| "Why We Win" #1 reason | "Faster setup" (7/10) | "Faster setup" (8/10) | Strengthening ↑ |
| Competitor's perceived strength | "Ecosystem" (6/10) | "Ecosystem" (4/10) | Weakening ↓ |
| Top switching trigger | "Admin overhead" | "Price increase" | New trigger emerged |
| Hero feature demand | "Sprint visibility" | "Sprint visibility" | Stable → |
| Price sensitivity | Fair: $15/user | Fair: $18/user | WTP increasing ↑ |

### Implications:
- Our setup speed advantage is strengthening — lean into it harder
- Jira's ecosystem advantage is fading — reduce emphasis on integration parity
- New switching trigger (price) — time outbound around Jira renewals
- WTP increasing — test a price tier at $18/user

15. Best Practices and Common Mistakes

Do

• Use the exact persona language in deliverables. "I could have my team running in a day" is more credible and memorable than "Rapid implementation." Customer language beats marketing copy in every sales context.
• Include frequency counts. "Cited by 7 out of 10" carries weight. "Some buyers said" does not. The numbers are the evidence.
• Generate all 7 deliverables from every study. The marginal effort per deliverable is 3–10 minutes. A study that only produces a battlecard is underutilised.
• Match persona filters to your actual ICP. A battlecard built from "US adults aged 18–65" produces generic intelligence. Match the filters to who actually buys your product.
• Ask questions sequentially. Conversational context produces richer, more specific responses. Batching all 7 produces shallow, disconnected answers that yield weaker deliverables.
• Honestly acknowledge competitor strengths. The battlecard must include genuine competitor advantages with response strategies. Reps who deny obvious strengths lose credibility.
• Update monthly, not quarterly. The speed of Ditto + Claude Code makes monthly refreshes practical. Targeted 3–5 question studies can update specific deliverables in under 30 minutes.
• Include the share link in sales collateral. The study link is self-demonstrating social proof. Prospects who explore it see the methodology, personas, and raw responses. It builds trust.
• Collect sales feedback. Ask reps: "Which deliverable was most useful? What objection isn't covered? What's changed in the field?" Feed this into the next study design.

Don't

• Don't produce 10-page competitive dossiers. One page per competitor. If it can't be scanned in 60 seconds during a live call, it won't be used when it matters.
• Don't use fewer than 10 personas. Frequency counts below 10 lack credibility. "3 out of 5 said" is noise. "7 out of 10 said" is a pattern.
• Don't skip Q4 (hero feature). Without buyer-priority feature ranking, your demo script defaults to engineering-build order. This single data point transforms demo effectiveness.
• Don't treat enablement as a one-time deliverable. Ship it, forget it = stale within weeks. Continuous iteration based on sales feedback and competitive shifts is the only sustainable model.
• Don't generate objection responses without evidence. "Don't worry about that" is dismissive. "7 out of 10 buyers shared that concern, and here's what addressed it" is credible.
• Don't batch questions. Sequential questioning produces dramatically richer content. This is the single most common mistake across all Ditto workflows.
• Don't forget to call /complete. Study completion triggers Ditto's analysis engine, which identifies segments and divergences that add depth to every deliverable.
• Don't use deliverables without sales input. The best enablement is co-created: Ditto provides the buyer voice, Claude Code generates the structure, and sales validates against real-world experience.

Common API Errors

16. Frequently Asked Questions

How long does the full workflow take from study design to 7 deliverables?

Approximately 60 minutes total: 10 minutes for study design and group creation, 20 minutes for study execution (asking 7 questions and polling responses), 5 minutes for study completion, and 25–30 minutes for Claude Code to generate all 7 deliverables. The traditional equivalent takes 3–6 weeks.

How many personas should I use?

10 per study is the recommended minimum. This provides enough diversity for credible frequency counts ("7 out of 10 said"). For buyer committee studies, use 10 per buyer type (4 parallel studies of 10 = 40 total personas, still completing in roughly the same wall-clock time due to parallelisation).

Should I run one study per competitor or one study covering multiple?

One study per competitor. Q2 and Q3 reference the specific competitor by name. A study that tries to cover three competitors becomes unfocused. For multiple competitors, run parallel studies (same questions, different competitor names in Q2/Q3).

What if my sales team says an objection isn't covered?

Run a targeted 3–5 question follow-up study focused on the new objection. Create a new research group or reuse the existing one. Ask personas specifically about the concern sales is hearing. Update the objection guide and battlecard within 30 minutes.

How often should I refresh the full kit?

Full refresh quarterly. Targeted updates (specific objections, competitive shifts) monthly. If a major competitive event occurs (competitor launches feature, raises prices, suffers outage), run an immediate pulse study and update the relevant deliverables the same day.

Can I use this for products that don't have a direct competitor?

Yes. Replace Q2's competitor names with the alternatives buyers actually use: spreadsheets, manual processes, internal tools, "doing nothing." The competitive battlecard becomes a "Why Change" card: why your product beats the status quo. Q5 (switching triggers) becomes "What would make you invest in a solution?"

How does the quote bank differ from a testimonial page?

Testimonials are curated, approved, polished. The quote bank is raw buyer language organised by theme. Sales reps use it to find the right quote for the right meeting: "When talking to a CFO about ROI, use this quote from a 45-year-old finance director." The specificity and demographic context make quotes credible in live conversations.

Can I reuse a research group across multiple studies?

Yes. If you want to run a follow-up study with the same personas (e.g., a competitive update or new objection deep-dive), create a new study referencing the same research_group_uuid. Personas retain context from previous studies, which can produce deeper insights.

What's the best way to distribute deliverables to the sales team?

Wherever your sales team already works: Slack channel, sales enablement platform (Highspot, Seismic, Showpad), shared drive, or directly in CRM. The format matters less than the access pattern. If reps can't find the battlecard in 10 seconds during a live call, it won't get used. Pin it where they look.

How does this compare to traditional win/loss analysis?

Traditional win/loss: 4–6 weeks, 10–15 interviews, buyers who chose your competitor are reluctant to participate. Ditto: 60 minutes, 10 persona responses, no recruitment friction. EY validated 92% correlation between Ditto synthetic responses and traditional research. The recommended approach is hybrid: Ditto for continuous enablement, win/loss interviews for deal-specific post-mortems.

Related guides:

• Competitive Intelligence Guide for Claude Code
• Product Messaging Guide for Claude Code
• Positioning Validation Guide for Claude Code
• Pricing Research Guide for Claude Code
• Customer Segmentation Guide for Claude Code
• Content Marketing Engine Guide for Claude Code
• Voice of Customer Guide for Claude Code
• Sales Enablement Guide for Claude Code
• Ditto API for Claude Code: Complete Guide
• Installing the Ditto Skill

Ditto — Synthetic market research with 300,000+ AI personas. Validated by EY (92% correlation), Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, and Oxford.
askditto.io · [email protected]