TL;DR: Real differentiation is not a contrarian label or a new category. It is a customer-visible choice backed by a constraint the business is willing to keep.
You know the moment. A strategy deck reaches the differentiation slide and the language lifts off: category-defining, contrarian, impossible to copy. Everyone nods. Nobody has said what the customer will experience differently on Tuesday.
Question the category. Challenge the assumptions. Create a new kind of value. Change the conditions of the industry. Build something competitors cannot copy.
It is all useful advice. It is also increasingly familiar.
At some point, the advice for escaping sameness becomes another route into it.
The reason is simple. The language of differentiation is cheap to reproduce. The constraints that make difference real are expensive to maintain.
The new sameness
There is a common explanation for the current competitive problem. Technology has made supply abundant, customer needs are well served, and fast imitation has reduced the distance between one offer and the next.
That diagnosis is broadly right. The harder question is what follows.
One answer, made explicitly by Alex M H Smith, is to move above customer focus. Instead of asking only what people want, change the conditions of the industry itself. Do something that reshapes expectations rather than simply responding to them.
That is a stronger ambition than adding another feature or narrowing another niche. It is also the kind of advice that spreads quickly because it sounds like an answer to a crowded market.
Soon companies are being encouraged to be category-defining, contrarian, provocative and impossible to copy.
The advice starts producing its own sameness.
Difference is not a posture
The problem is not the idea of changing an industry. It is confusing a claim about change with the work of changing anything.
A company can say it is challenging the status quo while keeping the same incentives, delivery model, customer relationship and definition of success as everyone else.
A consultant can present a “new category” that is really a familiar service with a more dramatic label.
A brand can mock the conventions of its market while reproducing those conventions in the way it sells, measures and treats people.
That is how distinctiveness becomes theatre. The surface changes first, while the system underneath stays intact.
Real difference is less comfortable.
It usually appears as a constraint someone has chosen to keep: a slower process because quality depends on attention, a narrower promise because the team refuses to sell work it cannot support, or a different relationship with customers because the business is organised around trust rather than volume.
Those choices may eventually become positioning. They begin as operating decisions.
The customer still gets a vote
There is a danger in moving too far from customer focus. An industry may be the object of your ambition, but it is not necessarily the audience for your message.
Customers do not owe a business admiration for its theory of change. They experience it as a better decision, a clearer service, a useful constraint, a fairer exchange, or a problem that has finally stopped recurring.
That is why a provocative advert is not automatically an industry-changing move. It may attract attention, but the product and the customer relationship have to carry the argument. If the customer cannot feel what has changed, the “new category” may be little more than internal strategy language with a media budget.
The stronger sequence is a loop. Challenge an industry assumption, turn that challenge into a concrete customer benefit, then reorganise the business around delivering it consistently.
What this looks like in practice
For a service business, the change may be modest but still meaningful. Instead of presenting a long menu of capabilities, it starts with the decision the client is trying to make. It defines the smallest useful intervention, makes the trade-offs visible, and leaves the client with something they can use after the engagement.
That does not require a new category name. It changes the relationship. The business is no longer selling a collection of tasks. It is helping someone move from uncertainty to a better decision, and taking responsibility for that movement.
The distinction matters because a new label is easy to borrow. A different standard of responsibility is harder to sustain.
The thing that cannot be copied
The easiest things to copy are the visible things.
The phrase, the palette, the provocative advert, the new category name and the founder story can all be borrowed.
The harder part is copying the accumulated decisions behind them.
Why does this business refuse that type of work? Why does it spend more time at the beginning? Why does it preserve a particular kind of detail? Why does it accept a trade-off that a faster competitor would reject?
Those decisions create a pattern. The pattern becomes recognisable. It may later become a brand, but the brand is the residue of the practice, not a replacement for it.
This matters even more when production is cheap and imitation is fast. When anyone can generate a plausible visual identity, website, campaign or strategic narrative, the question shifts from “Can you make this?” to “Why do you keep making this choice when another choice would be easier?”
You cannot manufacture that answer at the end of the process. It has to be visible in the work.
The cost of being different
There is another weakness in the usual conversation about differentiation. It treats difference as an advantage without asking who pays for it.
Changing an industry requires more than a good idea. It can require time, cash, patience, internal alignment and permission to absorb failure. A small business may have more freedom to experiment but less room to survive a long period without demand. A large business may have resources but incentives that punish anything the next quarter cannot explain.
The useful response is to find the specific trade-off you can actually sustain.
You do not need to reinvent an entire industry to become meaningfully different. You may only need to change one expectation for one group of people, then keep delivering on it after the novelty has gone.
That is less glamorous than disruption, but more useful.
A better test
Before describing a business as distinctive, ask yourself:
What behaviour, assumption or trade-off are we changing?
Where does that change appear in the customer’s experience?
What have we given up to make it possible?
Which competitor could copy the language tomorrow, and what would still be difficult to copy?
Would we keep making this choice if nobody praised it?
The last question matters most.
If the answer is no, the difference may be a campaign. If it is yes, it may be a practice.
The quiet advantage
No one needs to rebuild an entire industry.
That expectation creates pressure to perform originality. Fast systems are good at reproducing performances.
The stronger route is quieter. Decide what you will pay attention to and what you will not optimise for. Decide which promise you are willing to make repeatedly, even when it costs you an easier sale.
Over time, those decisions form a position that is harder to borrow because it has consequences.
The advantage is not simply being unlike the others.
It is becoming accountable to a particular way of working. For someone else to imitate it, they would have to become a different kind of organisation.
The question is not whether you can look unlike the market. It is which consequence you are willing to own for long enough that people recognise the pattern.
Before calling the work distinctive, ask two plain questions. What does it make possible for the customer? What did you have to stop doing to deliver it? If you cannot answer both, you may have a position statement rather than a position.
Source and boundaries
This article responds to Alex M H Smith’s “How do we win when everyone is the same?”. Smith’s concept of moving from customer focus towards changing industry conditions is treated here as a provocation, not as a framework to reproduce.
No published comments yet.