For organizers deciding what their event stands for
Event PitchThere are many vendor-day events. Say why yours is not one of them - honestly.
Say who owns the event, what attendees would do instead, and what you believe only your event has. Free in your browser: what your governance lets you claim, the alternatives map, which attributes pass the only-this-event test, the category frame, where to invest, the rename gate and a drafted statement. A run writes the positioning brief, or the charter every organizer signs so they all describe the event the same way. No invented numbers.
1 The event, its owner and its audience free
2 The positioning, worked out free
What the page flags
The statement and what the governance allows
Category frame - efficiency on the left, value on the right
Alternatives, the only-this-event test, levers
The promise, edition by edition
Beside the program - what sponsors buy
3 Positioning brief or team charter metered
Pricing as soon as the session is ready...
Sign inThe reply could not be read. Here it is as it came back:
Statement and contrast
Governance and segment
Alternatives and attributes
Category candidates
Cut from the menu
The promise, edition by edition
Levers, rebrand and sponsors
Re-run triggers
Gates
Caveats
The page's check of this reply
4 Saved positionings
How it works
Start with who owns the event and where its money goes - that decides what it can honestly claim. A community or foundation event can call itself vendor-neutral while one vendor's content stays well short of a third of the program; a vendor event never can, however warm its language. Then map what attendees would do instead - rival events, adjacent ones, learning without an event, sending a colleague, doing nothing - and keep only the attributes nobody nearby already has.
The frame is a subcategory by default: it inherits a known budget line without being compared feature by feature with the incumbent. A new category pays an education tax only a team with runway, sponsor relationships and a brand can afford, and "for everyone in tech" is no frame at all. Contrast with an archetype, never a named rival; rename only once the program has already outgrown the name; and check that something delivers the headline promise at every edition before it goes public.