Your Reactions
Share how this narrative lands. Your reactions shape the workshop conversation.
Reaction shared. Thank you.
No reactions yet. Be the first to share how this narrative lands.
The Journey
Feature Extraction
features captured
No features match the current filters.
Hypothesis Pyramid
The team's declared belief about where each feature sits -- untested.
Click a layer above to highlight it
This is the team's hypothesis -- their declared self-understanding. It has not been tested against market data. Phase 3 will challenge it.
Market Overview
What patterns emerged from 107 competitors?
Analysis Summary
Key findings from the competitive landscape analysis.
Where the Widest Gaps Exist
Between Ring 1's institutional language and Ring 3's peer-to-peer architecture. Hospital foundations still operate as if the giving page is the primary donation interface.
Between gratitude-based communication and donor demand for proof. Concrete impact math is the #1 trust-builder. Foundations respond with more gratitude language, not more proof.
Between national/institutional positioning and the local donor's community identity. Almost no one positions specifically for a geographic community, despite donors giving locally because they live locally.
Where Genuine Whitespace Appears for Eisenhower
Geographic specificity as positioning. Almost no hospital foundation uses its geography as a primary brand element. A foundation that looks, sounds, and feels like the desert would stand alone.
The only nonprofit in a for-profit valley. A structural fact no competitor can replicate. Community ownership vs. corporate healthcare is underutilized.
The Mobile Care Unit and upstream investment story. Eisenhower is already doing what the innovator trends predict. The framing has not caught up.
The intimacy gap. Large systems cannot replicate what a community hospital naturally has: donors who know their doctors, a foundation president who walks into the same grocery store as his donors.
The proof-of-impact opportunity. Countable, tangible programs exist (Mobile Care Unit deployments, patients seen). None are currently published on giving pages.
The DAF infrastructure gap. The Coachella Valley's affluent retiree population is precisely the demographic most likely to use DAFs. No DAFpay integration exists.
Directional Signals
The market is crowded with institutions that sound like institutions. It is nearly empty of institutions that sound like communities.
The market is crowded with "world-class" claims backed by nothing. It is nearly empty of local-scale impact claims backed by specific numbers.
The market is crowded with gratitude language. It is nearly empty of proof language.
The market talks about health equity. A few organizations are actually funding it. Eisenhower's Mobile Care Unit and Latinos in Philanthropy program are evidence, not language.
Coming Soon
This section unlocks in a later workshop phase.
Market Expectation Trends
6 saturated patterns that define what NOT to copy. When 30%+ of competitors demonstrate the same behavior, that behavior is a warning, not inspiration.
Mood Board
Screenshots for this trend are being collected.
Visual Drivers
Representative Competitors
Messaging Examples
Market Drivers
Market Need / Innovator Trends
5 emerging patterns signaling where healthcare philanthropy is heading. Not yet saturated, but influential enough that foundations paying attention are already adapting.
Mood Board
Screenshots for this trend are being collected.
Visual Drivers
Innovation Direction
Representative Companies
Market Drivers
Destabilization Overlay
The team's hypothesis tested against 107 competitors of market data.
Key Findings
Pyramid Comparison: Hypothesis vs. Market Reality
Hypothesis vs. Market Evidence
Left: How the team categorized 68 features. Right: Where the data suggests those features actually sit. This is what the evidence shows -- not a recommendation, but a mirror.
Team Hypothesis
Market Evidence
Where Features Move
From Needs: Circle of Stars, Loyalty Honor Roll, Ambassadors, Top Physician Recruitment, State-of-the-Art Facilities, Cancer Center, Donor-as-Partner, Service Recognition, Architecture as Healing, Whole-Person Care, Founders' Excellence, Bedside Manner, World-Class Non-Urban, Teaching Hospital
N5 Peer Trust (6): Donor-to-Owner, Referral Engine, Stakeholder Model, Story-Based Fundraising, Donor-Initiated Giving, Relationship-Centered
N1 Proof-of-Impact (2): 8x Volume Growth, Gift-to-Impact Communication
This reflects what the data suggests, not a final recommendation. The team determines what to do with these findings.
Feature-to-Trend Correlation
Your Features vs. The Market's Patterns
Each row is one of your 68 features. Each column is a market trend. Bright cells = correlation. Yellow-flagged rows (!!) = features the team placed in Unique or Market Needs that actually correlate with saturated expectation trends.
| Feature | E1 Trinity |
E2 World-Class |
E3 Gratitude |
E4 Blue-White |
E5 Campaign |
E6 Equity |
N1 Impact |
N2 Brand |
N3 DAF |
N4 Upstream |
N5 Peer |
Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trend Saturation Landscape
Market Expectation Saturation: How Crowded Is Each Trend?
Percentage of 107 competitors demonstrating each pattern. Anything above 30% is saturated territory.
This is diagnostic data. No reorganization of the pyramid has been performed. No strategic recommendations are included. The team will determine what to do with these findings in Phase 4.