Where Claim Differentiation Exists in the Market

In a crowded category, where all products have similar ingredients and similar prices, differentiation moves to ever subtler layers — and one of the most underrated is the solidity of the promise. Two products can state the same benefit; if one states it with an authorised wording and the other with a paraphrase that has no basis in the register, they are NOT saying the same thing — not to an auditor, and increasingly not to the consumer who has learned to read labels.

The useful news: this layer can be measured. RavenBI shows you, per category and per ingredient, how much of the market communicates with no authorised claim detected — and that number is the map of your differentiation space.

What you'll be able to do after this chapter

• read the claim-gap signals in Explore: what "N of M brands sell the hero with no authorised claim detected" means;
• use the white-space sorting in Winning Formulas to compare gaps across categories and heroes;
• phrase what you found correctly — as positioning space for you, not as a verdict on others.

The principle

The chapter's central signal appears in Explore at category level: "N of M brands sell the hero ingredient without an authorised EFSA claim — entry gap". Its counterpart in Winning Formulas is the "naked" percentage per hero — how many sell it without the carrier that would unlock the claim — with the white-space sorting that lifts to the top exactly the heroes with the biggest gap.

Before any workflow, the reading calibration — because it's easy to slide into conclusions the data doesn't support:

What the number says: this many brands communicate on this ingredient with no authorised promise detected in their public materials. What it does NOT say: that those brands are non-compliant. Many communicate legally on "on hold" claims (the transitional regime described in chapter 1); others deliberately choose not to make claims; and detection works on public materials, not on anyone's files. The gap is a research point about your positioning space — not a list of culprits. The same discipline every number demands: a category's claim gap is read with its base next to it (N of M), never as a floating percentage.

Once calibrated, the signal becomes very practical: a big gap is a differentiation hypothesis built on the authorised claim — one you validate by opening the brands, ads, and formulas behind the number, not by declaring it won from the table. Chapter 3 already gave you the tool to occupy it, if it holds up.

The workflow in RavenBI

1. Open Explore on your market and walk through the claim-gap discoveries at category level: where the radar signals entry gaps, with N of M next to each.
2. Move to Winning Formulas and sort by white-space: the heroes with the biggest "naked" percentage — always read together with its absolute base (N of M brands), never as a floating percentage. Compare your hero candidates on this axis — with the story being equal, the hero with the bigger gap leaves you more room.
3. For the gap that interests you, get concrete: open a few of the brands in that category and look at how they actually communicate — on on-hold claims? on messages with no claim? on wordings for which you detect no basis in the register? The structure of the gap matters as much as its size.
4. Check the reverse as well: if in your category almost EVERYONE has an authorised claim, solidity no longer differentiates — it's the entry ticket, and your differentiation moves to another layer (offer, format, audience — the other guides).
5. Note the conclusion in a single positioning sentence: "In category X, N of M brands communicate without an authorised claim; I enter with wording Y, unlocked by carrier Z." That sentence is the direct bridge to the copy chapter.

How to read the signals

• Big gap in a category with rising demand = the chapter's target combination — room for a solid promise exactly where the audience is heading;
• Big gap, but structured on on-hold claims = the market stands legally on the transitional regime — your differentiation isn't "they're wrong", it's "my promise doesn't depend on a transitional regime";
• Small gap (the majority has authorised claims) = a category mature on compliance — the claim is hygiene here, not differentiation; don't build your positioning on it;
• Gap closing fast from one visit to the next = the market is educating itself — the window still exists, but it's less and less yours; an acceleration signal, not an abandonment signal.

The typical mistakes

• reading the gap as an accusation and using it in marketing against named competitors — beyond the legal risk of the statement, it's simply a wrong reading of the data;
• reporting the gap without a base — "73% have no claim" without N of M is exactly the kind of number this guide teaches you not to utter;
• confusing the gap with demand — an empty space with no audience stays empty for nothing; the claim gap is read TOGETHER with the demand signals;
• stopping at the gap's size without its structure — a gap of brands staying silent is a different opportunity than a gap of brands with wordings to check.

Exercise

For your category, write down: the gap with its base (N of M), its structure (how many stay silent, how many communicate on on-hold claims, how many have wordings for which you detected no register basis — to be checked separately; estimated from five brands opened at random), and the positioning sentence from step 5 of the workflow. If the sentence sounds convincing with no reference to competitors — you have a positioning; if it needs "unlike the others" — give it one more iteration.

You have the claim, the formula, and the space. What remains is the part where most people get lost: the road from the authorised wording — precise, technical, almost sterile — to copy that sells without leaving its perimeter. Next chapter: from authorised claim to usable copy.