I have a unique project management solution. I have about 200 companies signed up to the beta over 10 weeks, the feedback is very good and the general consensus from surveys is it is a good solution for small teams that want an agile solution that they can use right away without the learning curve.
My target market is small to medium agile software teams.
The last few iterations I got feedback that my USP was not that clear. The problem I have is that I feel there are two types of solutions. Simple solutions like Trello/Asana/Basecamp etc. that are not agile and complex agile solutions like Atlassian/MS Project/Axosoft etc.
This I feel makes it hard to get my USP across as I am trying to explain two different USP's. The new improved USP I have right now is:
VS. simple solutions my product is geared towards agile teams. It has more features and also saves valuable time by automating repetitive tasks.
VS. other agile solutions my product is much simpler to use, increases engagement since its simple, saves valuable time by automating repetitive tasks and it has some unique features and in particular agile features that make it easier to apply the agile methodology to their projects.
It's a very competitive market.
Is my USP simply not that strong due to the competitive market or am I just not presenting and explaining it very well?
You're saying is that your product strikes a middle ground, "providing powerful project management features without the learning curve."
Why is no learning curve important? Because it allows teams to transition to it without taking time to do it. Teams that are already using complex products like Atlassian, etc. have already invested a lot of time into getting their whole team over the big learning curve, so they don't really have any reason to go with you. They would see it as a negative acknowledgement that they wasted time learning Atlassian, and since Atlassian already has more features than yours, they would be losing capabilities too (remember they're already over the learning curve). These are therefore the people that will say they don't understand your USP. You're not going to convince any of them to transition to your product.
The main persona you should be selling to is the people that either currently use the less complex solutions (Trello, etc.), and also the people that are just starting their first product and are just starting to look at the tools available (i.e. they haven't been exposed to anything yet). These are the people that will immediately understand your USP, and it will resonate with them. They want better tools without the learning curve. However, aside from time to learn, another reason some of these people have not gone to a more complex solution is because they cost more. So to get those people too, make sure you have a long free trial period to let them get a feel with their own experience that there's no learning curve, and to get them hooked on the advanced features, so when they try to go back to Trello, etc. they get frustrated with the annoying repetitive tasks, etc.
If you'd like suggestions more tailored to your specific product, send me a link and I'll check it out,
First, it is great that you have 200 companies signed up. Congratulations! What I see in your current USP options is that you come at the problem from either a mostly persona or competitive POV. I recommend that you learn more about the job that is getting done with these tools. Some tools overserve a job and some underserve a job. Few get it just right and have a roadmap to continue to serve the unmet needs of their market. Your best bet is to serve a market where the unmet needs are truly important and not met at all or are poorly met. I recommend that you go back to those 200 and ask one question to get you started. The question is: When you decided to try your new product what was going on in the business at that particular moment? If you stay curious, empathetic and remove your selfish needs, you will then be given a great number of areas to explore to see why they are on the path to purchase the product. Make the conversation completely about them. You really need to figure out what job they are trying to get done, not what you think they are trying to do with your or your competitors' products. I am happy to talk further if you like. Please connect with me if you wish to talk more.
I would ask why you created the product.
Why your company?
Why this product?
If you developed the product due to identifying a problem in a market that wanted/needed a solution and would be willing to pay to get it, then your product value should be clear to those people, and in fact they would be the ones you tell about it when it's ready.
So - it sounds like your customers (the one's with the budget that you want to access to pay for your system) - would be Project Managers, Scrum Masters etc.
Obviously most of the users would be engineers but the larger the company - the less likely they are to be involved in the choice (many will have a preference based on previous experience, but likely expect to use whatever the company selects).
You've said that your product is 'easier to use' than the Agile competitors - was that based on customer feedback?
When people decide to buy a system that's integral to the way their business will work and could impact their effectiveness, the decisions are based on more than just the product price, features and benefits. For example - many companies choose Atlassian because they know it's used by companies as big (or bigger) than them. (The old phrase of 'no-one gets fired for buying IBM comes to mind)
So - are you addressing those aspects in your USP?
Why should people trust your company over the competitors?
What is the real problem someone will face if they do NOT buy your product?
Is your USP focused on the people with the budget and authority to buy rather than the users?
Does your technology have something the others does not?
I think if you have the data to show your product is valuable to the intended customers once they have it then your USP might be better focused on the 'why the market needed you to create it', rather than some type of mental comparison chart with existing offerings.