Myth vs Fact Sheet Template

What it is

The Myth vs Fact Sheet is a structured format for addressing false or misleading claims about your organisation, product, or industry. Instead of ignoring misinformation or getting defensive, you use a simple format: identify the myth, state the actual fact, and provide evidence.

This works both internally (training teams on how to respond to competitor FUD) and externally (correcting media coverage or public misconceptions). The key is approaching it factually, not emotionally. You’re not arguing; you’re clarifying.

The template prevents your teams from making up counter-claims or responding emotionally. When sales hears a competitor claim, they have the facts and evidence ready. When a journalist prints something wrong, you have a clear correction.

When to use it

Use the Myth vs Fact Sheet when:

Competitors are spreading false claims about your organisation or product
Media coverage contains factual errors you need to correct
Industry discussion includes persistent myths that hurt your positioning
Sales teams need rapid-response talking points for objections
You need to train customer success on how to address misconceptions
A specific piece of misinformation is spreading

Don’t use the Myth vs Fact Sheet when:

You’re addressing differences in opinion or strategy (not myths)
The “myth” is just a competitor’s different approach (not a false claim)
You’re being defensive about legitimate criticism (address it directly instead)
You’re trying to discredit a competitor rather than clarify facts (that’s FUD itself)

Inputs needed

Before you start:

Specific myths, false claims, or misconceptions you’re addressing
The actual facts that correct each misconception
Evidence that backs up the facts (research, data, documentation)
Where these myths are circulating
Who needs to understand the correction (sales, customers, media, public)

The template

Myth vs Fact Registry

Create a spreadsheet with:

Myth/Claim	Fact	Evidence	Source of Myth	Where It Spreads	Who Should Know	Counter Narrative
[The claim]	[What’s actually true]	[Proof/citation]	[Competitor / Media / Industry]	[Where it’s circulating]	[Target audience]	[How to address it]

Individual Myth Breakdown Template

THE MYTH: [Exact statement of the false or misleading claim]

SOURCE: Where is this coming from?

THE FACT: [Clear, concise statement of what’s actually true]

EVIDENCE: [Proof that backs up the fact]

Research/study: [CITATION]
Data point: [SPECIFIC NUMBER]
Documentation: [LINK OR REFERENCE]
Expert testimony: [WHO SAYS THIS]
Third-party validation: [SOURCE]

WHY THE MYTH PERSISTS: [Why people might believe this misunderstanding]

HOW TO ADDRESS IT: When this myth comes up, say: “[Short, direct statement correcting the myth] Here’s what’s actually true: [THE FACT] [Evidence reference]”

TONE: [ ] Correct defensively (no) [ ] Clarify conversationally (yes) [ ] Acknowledge concern underneath (often helpful)

DO NOT SAY: [Language to avoid when responding to this myth]

FOLLOW-UP TALKING POINTS: If asked for more detail, you can say:

[Point 1]
[Point 2]
[Point 3]

AI prompt

Base prompt

I'm building a Myth vs Fact Sheet to address false claims about
[ORGANISATION/PRODUCT].

The myths I need to address:
1. [MYTH 1 — exact claim]
2. [MYTH 2 — exact claim]
3. [MYTH 3 — exact claim]

Here's the actual truth for each:
1. [FACT 1]
2. [FACT 2]
3. [FACT 3]

Evidence I have:
[RESEARCH, DATA, DOCUMENTATION]

For each myth, please develop:
1. A clear statement of the false claim
2. The actual fact (in simple language)
3. Evidence that proves the fact
4. Explanation of why this myth might persist
5. A conversational way to address it (not defensive)
6. Follow-up points if challenged further

The tone should be clarifying and factual, not argumentative.
Focus on helping people understand truth, not "winning" against the myth.

Prompt variations

Variation 1: Competitor FUD Response

[COMPETITOR] is claiming [FALSE CLAIM] about our [PRODUCT/CAPABILITY].

What's actually true: [FACTS]
Evidence we have: [PROOF]

Develop a Myth vs Fact Sheet that helps our:
- Sales team respond confidently to this objection
- Customer success address concerns from existing customers
- Marketing counter the claim if it spreads

Keep the tone factual and confident, not defensive or attack-focused.

Variation 2: Media Correction

[MEDIA OUTLET] published that [FALSE CLAIM] about our [TOPIC].

What they got wrong: [MISSTATEMENT]
What's accurate: [TRUTH]
Evidence: [CITATION/DATA]

Develop a correction statement that:
- Politely clarifies the misunderstanding
- Provides accurate information with evidence
- Doesn't attack the journalist
- Can be issued publicly or privately

Also develop talking points for our team when reporters bring this up.

Variation 3: Customer Concern

Customers/prospects are concerned that [MYTH] about our [AREA].

The concern seems to come from: [SOURCE]
What's actually true: [FACTS]
Evidence: [PROOF POINTS]

Develop a Myth vs Fact Sheet suitable for:
- Customer success to address concerns
- Sales to handle objections
- Marketing to address in FAQ or documentation
- Internal: to ensure our teams understand the facts

Variation 4: Industry Misconception

In our industry, there's persistent belief that [MYTH].

This affects our positioning because: [IMPACT]
What's actually true: [FACT]
Evidence: [RESEARCH, DATA]

Develop a Myth vs Fact Sheet that helps us:
- Educate the market about the truth
- Position ourselves correctly
- Address this in thought leadership
- Train teams on the correct framing

Variation 5: Internal Clarification

Our teams are operating with a false understanding about [TOPIC].

The misconception: [MYTH]
The accurate information: [FACT]
Why this matters: [IMPACT]
Evidence: [PROOF]

Develop internal-facing Myth vs Fact content that:
- Clarifies the misunderstanding
- Ensures all teams have consistent facts
- Prevents this false information spreading to customers
- Explains why the truth matters

Human review checklist

Example output

THE MYTH: “[Company] requires you to replace your entire existing system”

SOURCE:

Competitor marketing
Customer concerns during sales conversations

THE FACT: Our platform integrates with your existing systems. We’ve built API connections to 200+ enterprise tools, and we provide custom integration support if you have legacy systems we haven’t documented yet. Most customers keep their current tech stack and add us on top.

EVIDENCE:

87% of customers reported no system replacement required
Integration documentation covers 200+ platforms, with 15+ pre-built connectors
6-month case study: integrated with customer’s legacy system in 2 weeks without replacing anything
Customer testimonial available from [Name, Company] who kept their existing stack

WHY THE MYTH PERSISTS:

When competitors describe their own implementation, they sometimes require extensive change. This creates perception that all solutions work that way
Some customers have had bad experiences with other vendors who required replacing systems, so they assume all new platforms do the same
Outdated messaging from older versions of our product (we’ve since changed approach)

HOW TO ADDRESS IT: Short version: “Actually, we integrate with what you already have. 87% of customers don’t replace their existing systems; they add us alongside them.”

Longer version: “I understand that concern—a lot of platforms do require system replacement, and that’s painful. We took a different approach. We built integrations into 200+ existing tools. Most customers keep everything they have and add us as an additional layer on top. If you have something unusual, our integration team can usually custom-build a connection.”

TONE:

Acknowledge the legitimate concern (system replacement is painful)
Differentiate clearly (we’re different)
Provide proof (specific numbers, case study)
Offer support (custom integration available)

DO NOT SAY:

“No, that’s wrong” (defensive)
“[Competitor] requires replacements because they’re poorly built” (attacking competitor)
“You’re the first person to ask about this” (suggests it’s not a real concern)

FOLLOW-UP TALKING POINTS: If asked for more detail:

“I can connect you with three customers running [similar legacy system] who went live in under 4 weeks with zero system replacement”
“Our integration support team has documentation for [specific systems you mentioned]—let me send you the integration guide”
“If you’re concerned about a specific system, I can arrange a 20-minute call with our technical team to scope out exactly how we’d integrate”

THE MYTH: “[Company]‘s approach is unproven—nobody major uses it”

SOURCE:

Competitor marketing or analyst skepticism
Prospect worry about being an early adopter

THE FACT: We serve [X] customers across [industries/sizes], including [3-4 recognisable company names or descriptions]. These customers have chosen us for specific reasons, documented in case studies. “Major” doesn’t always mean “right fit for your use case”—we focus on customers where our approach delivers real value.

EVIDENCE:

Customer list: [Names or descriptions—anonymised if confidentiality agreement requires]
Case studies: [X published case studies with measurable outcomes]
Analyst recognition: [Report/ranking]
Adoption rate: [X% year-over-year growth in similar companies]

WHY THE MYTH PERSISTS:

We’re newer or smaller than some competitors, so name recognition is lower
“Proven” and “major customers” are vague terms competitors use without backing them up
Risk-averse buyers equate market share with quality (not always true)

HOW TO ADDRESS IT: Short version: “Adoption is higher than you might think—we serve [X] customers, including [recognisable companies]. More importantly, adoption matters less than fit: do we solve your actual problem?”

Longer version: “I get this question often. Yes, we’re newer. But we’re growing fast because we solve specific problems really well. We’ve worked with [similar company] on [similar challenge] and documented the result. That matters more than whether we’re in Fortune 500 yet. Let me show you whether we’re actually a fit for you.”

TONE:

Acknowledge the concern (newness feels risky)
Provide proof (specific customers and growth)
Reframe the question (fit matters more than size)
Offer evidence (case studies)

DO NOT SAY:

“We’re growing faster than them” (competitive, not helpful)
“Major doesn’t mean good” (dismissive of their concern)
“You’re just being conservative” (patronising)

FOLLOW-UP TALKING POINTS:

“I can set you up with a customer in your industry who went through the same adoption concern—they’re happy to share their story”
“Here’s our adoption trajectory over the past three years—you can see the acceleration as customers realise the value”
“The biggest risk isn’t choosing us; it’s choosing wrong for your use case. Let’s make sure we’re actually a fit before worrying about adoption numbers”

FAQ Builder — Convert myths into FAQ questions for your website or documentation
Proof Points Bank — Draw evidence from your proof point library to back up myth corrections
Key Messages Grid — Develop audience-specific myth corrections
Executive Quote Pack — Create quotes that subtly counter myths without being defensive
Message House — Use this to reinforce what’s actually true about your positioning

Tips for success

Address the myth without amplifying it. You want to correct misinformation, not repeat it everywhere. Use this sheet with sales teams, customer success, and marketing—not as a public campaign that draws more attention to the false claim.

Acknowledge the concern underneath. Most myths persist because there’s a real worry underneath. If prospects worry about system replacement, that’s because they’ve had bad experiences with other vendors. Acknowledging that builds credibility before you offer the correction.

Provide specific evidence, not generic denial. “No, that’s not true” is weak. “Here’s why that’s not true, backed by [specific proof]” is strong. Specificity (case study with numbers, analyst rankings, customer testimonials) is what makes corrections believable.

Don’t turn it into competitor bashing. The temptation is to blame the competitor spreading the myth. Resist it. Correct the record, provide evidence, and move on. If you spend time attacking the competitor, you look defensive and insecure.

Keep your team aligned on the facts. Circulate your Myth vs Fact Sheet to sales, customer success, and marketing. When they all say the same thing with the same evidence, it builds credibility. When they say different things, it creates suspicion.

Common pitfalls

Treating legitimate criticism as myth. If a competitor says “our platform has more integrations,” that’s not a myth—it’s potentially true. Only use this template for false claims, not for genuine competitive differences or legitimate concerns.

Providing insufficient evidence. If you’re going to correct a myth, back it up with real evidence. “Most customers don’t replace their systems” is a claim, not evidence. What’s the evidence? Survey data? Case studies? Customer testimonials? Cite something specific.

Defensive or angry tone. The worst Myth vs Fact sheets sound like you’re arguing. The best ones sound like you’re patiently clarifying. If your response includes “anyone who thinks that is wrong” or “we’re tired of hearing this,” rewrite it with more neutrality.

Ignoring the pattern. If the same myth keeps coming up, fix it at the source. Is it your messaging that’s confusing? Is it a competitor campaign? Is it a legitimate gap in your marketing? Address the pattern, not just individual instances.

Overcorrecting into overly detailed explanations. You want to correct the record, not write a dissertation. Keep the myth/fact section concise. Save detailed explanation for the “follow-up talking points” section.

Myth vs Fact Sheet