skip to content

← back to the plays

independence2 unconnected · 1 more author in those circles
standing

contested · 5 claims against 3

applies to

b2b, no audience needed

confidence

high

evidence

9 claims · 8 articles · 4 receipts

window

2016-10-28 → 2023-08-05

2 builders who never spoke to each other · contested

Decide whether to fight the giant head on

Going straight at a dominant incumbent hands you proven demand and a hard positioning problem in exchange. The other camp treats a category already split into dozens of funded near-identical tools as a place to leave, and would rather change target market than compete on the same ground.

What both sides agree on

  • Treat existing competitors as encouraging rather than disqualifying: finding nothing at all serving the need usually means there is no market, while ten near-identical products means move on.

Where this splits

Crowded markets with entrenched leaders read either as proven demand worth carving into or as a reason to go elsewhere.

  1. side 01 · 5 claims

    Leave crowded categories and change target market instead

    Justin Jackson · Luca Restagno

    1. 1If the market you are in is crowded, change target market or take a deliberately unconventional approach rather than competing head-on.
    2. 2Avoid rebuilding a proven product for the identical audience; the incumbent holds both the market share and the attention, and prospects have no reason to look at you.
    3. 3Avoid the plain CRUD categories - invoicing, time tracking, project management - where the chance to be first has gone and leaders take a disproportionate share.
    4. 4Stay out of a category that funded incumbents have already split into dozens of narrow use-case tools, because you cannot cover that surface area alone.
    5. 5Read customers who are content with several existing options as a sign of weak demand, and skip categories like to-do and project management apps that are saturated with funded incumbents.

  2. side 02 · 3 claims

    Attack the dominant incumbent, the demand is proven

    Justin Jackson

    1. 1Going head-on at an enormous incumbent is a legitimate strategy, but understand the trade you're making: the easy part is demand, the hard part becomes positioning and being noticed.
    2. 2Proven demand in a category with giant incumbents should attract you rather than scare you off; bootstrappers repeatedly carve out slices of crowded markets.
    3. 3A tiny share of an enormous category can still be a substantial business, so do not read a dominant incumbent as a closed door.

What it returned

  • $701

    Ruben Gamez started Docsketch against DocuSign, a company with $701 million of revenue the prior year, upwards of 300,000 paying accounts, and a user base past 200 million.

  • 2013

    ConvertKit started in 2013 against MailChimp and hundreds of rivals; MeetEdgar in 2014 after Buffer and Hootsuite raised millions; Beanstalk in 2007 against GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab and Microsoft; Fathom against Google Analytics and Mixpanel; Transistor in commoditised podcast hosting.

  • 2013

    ConvertKit, launched in 2013, held 0.34% of the market against MailChimp's 60.51% and was still doing $1.6 million in MRR.

  • Justin builds on Nick Quah's observation that makers all drill for oil in the spot where someone already struck it.

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.