skip to content

← back to the plays

independence3 unconnected · 1 more author in those circles
standing

contested · 8 claims against 3

applies to

b2b, no audience needed

mixed results

confidence

high

evidence

11 claims · 7 articles · 4 receipts

window

2021-11-18 → 2025-05-04

3 builders who never spoke to each other · contested

Answer why you and not the incumbent

Buyers compare you to whatever they already run, and loyalty to a tool that works is far stronger than founders assume. One extra feature or a slightly lower price does not clear the cost of switching, so prepare a reason that is different in kind rather than marginally better.

Where this splits

Estimates of the required improvement range from a realistic 1.5 to 2 times better up to a four point jump on a ten point scale.

  1. side 01 · 8 claims

    You need a big jump, not a marginal improvement

    Jason Cohen · Justin Jackson · Kunal Shah

    1. 1A comparable product gives nobody a reason to move sideways; if you're going after an entrenched incumbent you need to be strange and different enough that people can't ignore it.
    2. 2Prepare a real answer to why you and not the incumbent, because buyers will compare you regardless, and one extra feature or being ten dollars cheaper is not an answer.
    3. 3Assume loyalty to whatever the customer uses now is far stronger than you think, because re-evaluating options is tiring and good enough wins.
    4. 4Treat a mildly annoying incumbent as a closed door rather than an opening, because irritation is not enough to make teams switch.
    5. 5Score the tool your buyer uses today out of ten, score yours the same way, and only proceed if you beat it by four points or more.

  2. side 02 · 3 claims

    A modest, specific edge is enough to win switchers

    Jason Cohen · Jorn Rigter · Justin Jackson

    1. 1Position as different rather than as better: being distinctive means some people find you worse, and the ones who find your kind of different right will come to you and stay.
    2. 2Stop planning to beat a mature category ten times over; in crowded markets with entrenched incumbents, deep pockets and years of accumulated backlinks, a 1.5-2x improvement is a more realistic edge.
    3. 3Position against the specific way the alternatives fail, and build the version that does not fail that way.

What it returned

  • 4

    Kunal Shah's Delta-4 test. Anything the incumbent scores at six or above is close to unreplaceable, which is why Excel survives.

  • Google+ failed because it resembled Facebook and demanded people rebuild their network; Snapchat succeeded by being unconventional and fun.

  • People stay on Microsoft Excel despite many alternatives simply because it works.

  • Derrick Reimer found a canyon between interest in Level and actual adoption: in follow-up conversations, small teams described Slack as at most a minor annoyance and not worth the trouble of moving.

Sources

the second source

Three plays a week, for the phase you are in

No roundup of links, no news. Three tactics more than one builder arrived at separately, with the numbers each one returned and the disagreements left in.

One email a week. Unsubscribe in one click, and the address is used for this and nothing else.

More in positioning

all positioning plays

the second source

Three plays a week, for the phase you are in

No roundup of links, no news. Three tactics more than one builder arrived at separately, with the numbers each one returned and the disagreements left in.

963 corroborated plays to draw from · 3 a week

One email a week. Unsubscribe in one click, and the address is used for this and nothing else.