<aside> 💡 This document aims at providing an overview of the preliminary research that we conducted before the launch of Claap and updated since then. This is a good way to understand the pain that we want to address, and the positioning that we have to fix it.

</aside>

Claap positioning

• Our core assumptions behind Claap
• Items to validate very quickly
• Validated learning these past few months
• Note - examples of outputs we collected with the test
• Positioning between horizontal (e.g. slack, emails) and vertical tools (e.g. figma)
• Competition vs “horizontal tools” (emails, slack, notion, gdoc)
• Competition vs “vertical tools” (e.g. Figma, Sketch)
• Asynchronous Meetings Blueprint

User quotes

• People are craving for asynchronous meetings.

Use cases

• The table below lists and details all the use cases that we observed during our Proof of concept and alpha roll out of the Minimum Lovable Product.
• For each use case detailed below, we gathered real videos shared in our different test companies. These videos are not listed below as they present confidential and sensitive discussions, but we can organize a call to showcase some of them during a live discussion if needed.
• These use cases are ordered by relevance, from 1 (highest) to 3 (lowest), depending on the ease of implementation, the serendipity and the frequency of the use case.

Copy of Claap - Use cases