Competitive differentiation is poison
Why the most common strategic advice is pulling your focus to the wrong thing.
We just wrapped the beta cohort of my new course on AI prototyping at Reforge, and the first official cohort kicks off April 24.
My goal was to go deeper than the tutorials out there and help non-technical people become AI-native builders. If prototyping and AI-powered development is reshaping how you approach your role — whether you're a PM, designer, engineer, user researcher, or something else entirely — check it out.
The most differentiated product? Might just be something nobody wants. And yet teams rally around it. Slide decks build toward it. Entire roadmaps get shaped by the question “What makes us different?” — when the far more important question is “What makes us better?”
Over my career consulting with dozens of companies on product strategy, I’ve found that the focus on differentiation is more destructive to clear strategic thinking than any other concept. The problem isn’t that differentiation is wrong — it’s that it’s incomplete. To understand why, we need to go back to first principles.
The focus on differentiation is more destructive to clear strategic thinking than any other concept.
The commodity-monopoly spectrum
The concept of strategic differentiation comes from a first principle about pricing power.
Consider two types of products:
A complete commodity — like bananas. Every product is identical. Customers don’t care which one they choose. The market sets the price, not the company.
A complete monopoly — like the NFL. The product is the only one of its kind. The company has complete control over price & supply.
These two extremes behave very differently. Commodity sellers have to match the market price or lose share to a cheaper provider selling the same thing. Monopolies can lower prices to increase demand or raise prices to pad profits. They’re in control. And we know from NFL ticket prices which option monopoly companies choose — they’re much more in the business of maximizing profits than maximizing demand.
Most companies don’t exist at either extreme. In a capitalist economy, total monopolies get regulated or assailed by competition that steals away their monopoly power. And commodity sellers band together to reclaim pricing control — this is why OPEC exists.
How “differentiation” becomes a trap
So competitive differentiation comes from this fundamental strategic principle: commodity products are all the same as other products in the market; monopoly products are unique. As shorthand, we use terms like “competitive differentiation” or “unique selling proposition” to highlight that there’s value in being unique.
But here’s the nuance that gets lost: being unique only matters if customers in your market want the unique thing you’re selling. Uniqueness on its own is not a virtue. In fact, uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness can undermine your entire strategy because it conflates being different with being better.
Uniqueness can undermine your entire strategy because it
conflates being different with being better
On the flip side, sameness can be a virtue. A product that closely resembles another product with strong product-market fit benefits from selling into a market that already wants what it has. In a pre-product-market-fit company, the similarity of your product to others carries a lot more weight than differences customers may not want.
That doesn’t mean your product can be identical to the competition. All things being equal, customers choose the product they’ve heard of, the product their friends use, the product from an established company with a track record.
So you need something to break through the noise. But what? Let’s look at two markets that tell very different stories about what that “something” actually is.
Two markets, two lessons
Uber vs. Lyft: Advantage through network effects
In the ride-sharing market, Uber and Lyft are nearly identical products. Uber won not because it was simply different, but because it had inherent advantages. As the network of drivers grew, that created a compounding advantage: better prices and faster service. Yes, you could call better prices and faster service “different” — but the important point is that those differences confer an advantage — one that compounds over time, making it harder and harder for anyone to compete.
Tidal vs. Spotify: Different ≠ better
In the early days of music streaming, Tidal had genuinely interesting strategic differences. Founded by music industry veterans, it offered a library of music unavailable on Spotify and the ability to stream CD-quality audio. Tidal was meaningfully different.
But Spotify had an advantage. With its smaller library and less focus on audio fidelity, Spotify could do a better job actually streaming songs to customers. Songs started faster. Fewer cutouts. Fewer buffering issues. It worked on connections of varying quality.
On paper, Spotify was subpar compared to Tidal — a smaller library, lower audio quality. But they had an advantage: more reliable music streaming. At the end of the day, listeners want to enjoy music uninterrupted more than they care about exclusive tracks they may never search for.
From differentiation to advantage
The next time you’re in a heated strategic conversation, pay attention.
If “competitive differentiation” or “unique selling proposition” are taking up a lot of airtime, notice where the focus lands. These terms pull your attention toward what’s different — not what’s better.
Instead, spotlight the term competitive advantage. Ask:
What advantages do we have relative to others in the market?
How can we turn those advantages into a product that’s better for customers?
When you focus on advantages instead of differences, you realize the goal isn’t uniqueness. It’s competitiveness.
The most successful companies — the ones that are effectively monopolies or near-monopolies — didn’t get there because they were different from everyone else. They got there because they had the biggest advantage, and that advantage compounded over time.