The problem before the product

Put two ads side by side: one opens with "contains magnesium bisglycinate 300 mg", the other with "waking up tired no matter how long you sleep?". Both sell, at bottom, the same product. But one talks about itself, the other about the customer — and the long-running ads of any arena align systematically with the second approach, for a simple reason: nobody searches for an ingredient; everybody wants to get rid of a problem.

For whoever analyses the market, this changes the unit of measurement: you don't compare products, you compare problems — and the way each brand has chosen its own.

What you'll be able to do after this chapter

identify the problem behind any ad — even when it's hidden under the ingredient;
map your arena's problems: which are oversaturated and which barely touched;
tell a popular problem from one being invested in consistently.

The principle

RavenBI's classifier labels every ad with the problem it attacks — fatigue, bloating, stress, sleep, joints and the rest of the vocabulary of pains supplements are bought for. Their distribution across your arena is the real map of positionings: where everyone crowds, where there's silence, and — most interestingly — where old and new ads tell different stories.

The reading rule comes from chapter 1: the number of ads on a problem is its popularity; the age of the ads on it is the seriousness of the commitment. A problem with many new and few old ads is a fashion in testing; one with a thick layer of long-running ads is a positioning that's been seriously occupied for a long time.

The workflow in RavenBI

In the Ad Library, on the arena defined in chapter 2, open the Problem facet and read the distribution: the big problems, the small ones, the ratio between them.
For your problem, apply the filter and the Exposure sort: who are the positioning's veterans — since when, with what reach, in how many variants.
Switch to Recent on the same problem: who's entering now and with what angle — are the newcomers copying the veterans or trying something else?
Repeat steps 2-3 on two or three neighbouring problems — the cheapest way to see whether your positioning is the most promising of the real options, not just the first one that came to you.
Note on the sheet: your problem, its size in the arena, its veterans, and one neighbouring problem surprisingly free — if it exists, it's a discovery in itself.

How to read the signals

Big problem, thick layer of old ads = validated, crowded positioning — you enter only with a different angle (chapter 4 hunts for it).
Big problem, almost only new ads = a wave in formation — the market is testing; you can wait to see what lasts, or enter early at your own risk.
Small problem, but with 2-3 very long-running ads = a niche that's been carrying someone for a long time — the smallness of the list hides a strong signal.
Your ingredient appears on several problems = the market hasn't decided the positioning — the chance to define it yourself, before someone else does.

The typical mistakes

choosing your problem by product, not by the map — "I have magnesium, therefore sleep" without checking there's still room on sleep;
counting ads without their age — popularity without seriousness is just noise;
ignoring the neighbouring problems — the good positioning is often one facet away from the obvious one;
reading the problem label as law — the classification is automatic; on ambiguous ads, open them and judge for yourself.

Exercise

For your arena, write the top 3 problems by ad count and, next to each, the age of its longest-running ad. Then answer in writing: what problem do you compete on, who are its veterans, and what neighbouring problem did you find freer than expected?

The problem is what the ad sells; the hook is how it opens the sale. The next chapter descends to the level of the first seconds — and to the underestimated, expensive difference between taking inspiration from the market and cloning it.