Your brand isn’t as differentiated as you think

Is your brand really differentiated? Do you genuinely offer something competitors can’t replicate? Although most marketers would confidently claim their brands are unique, I’d argue that they probably aren’t as differentiated as they think.

Too many marketers try to turn minor features or new products into differentiation. Whether that’s Vine’s short-form videos or Bowmar’s pocket calculator (don’t worry, no one else remembers them either), using something that’s easy to copy as your differentiator is unlikely to make your business successful in the long term.

How important is differentiation for a brand?

The definition and value of differentiation depend on who you ask.

Differentiation is crucial according to some experts

In 2000, Jack Trout and Steve Rivkin’s book, “Differentiate or Die: Survival in Our Era of Killer Competition,” changed the marketing world. It encouraged marketers to build their strategy around points of differentiation.

Yet Trout didn’t consider particular features or capabilities to be differentiators. Factors like customer support or service couldn’t differentiate a brand. Instead, Trout saw heritage, specialization, ownership of attributes, being first, and specialization as differentiators.

At the time, Trout’s argument appeared to prevail. For a couple of decades, it was almost impossible to attend a marketing meeting without someone asking how the brand would differentiate itself against competitors.

Differentiation is immaterial for others

But not everyone agreed with this approach. In 1997, Andrew Ehrenberg and his colleagues argued that most buyers didn’t see substantial differences between the products or services brands offer. Then in 2007, Ehrenberg and his colleagues claimed that only 10% to 20% of a brand’s customers saw it as unique or different.

Given the fast pace of today’s business environment, Ehrenberg may have been right all along.

Distinctiveness outweighs differentiation for some

The first cracks in the argument for differentiation appeared when Byron Sharp published “How Brands Grow” in 2010. In it, Sharp argued that distinctiveness was more important than differentiation.

Speed makes differentiation harder

Today it’s harder to have a unique differentiator unless you have powerful intellectual property that can’t be copied. Otherwise, brands can copy your products faster than ever. Even if their copy isn’t quite as good, it can be enough to destroy any differentiation you think you have.

This issue is most visible in software, where AI enables rapid development and deployment. Any differentiation you have today is likely to be everyone else’s feature tomorrow.

The same is true with physical products. Globalization and technology mean almost any brand can make products that match the competition in months, rather than the years or decades it used to take. That means you can lose differentiation before prospects even realize you offer something unique.

Recommended Articles

Your CEO wants answers your dashboard can’t give

Oct 23, 2026

The creative cost of chasing small performance gains

Oct 21, 2026

When the CMO sees growth and the CFO sees a problem

Oct 21, 2026

Is lack of differentiation a martech problem?

I’d argue that martech makes the problem worse. After all, differentiation only exists if your audience perceives it. And few brands spend enough time promoting their sources of differentiation.

Instead, many remain focused on the clever things their martech tools can do. In many cases, they’re much more fun than banging the same drum over and over again.

AI and stock images speed up campaign development but spread blandness. You regularly see the same stock image used by competitors, and AI means multiple brands often say almost the same thing.

I’d even argue that personalization can further worsen the situation. Many of today’s personalization attempts are just bland statements about the customer rather than compelling reasons the brand is the only or the best choice for them.

Do brands need to differentiate?

Many studies show that brands don’t need differentiation. And many of the differentiators that marketers list today don’t meet Trout’s original criteria. In many cases, they’re better as unique selling propositions (USPs).

What sets them apart is how well they treat their customers. Factors such as customer support, delivery performance, personal interaction, and prices really matter.

Since almost every brand claims to deliver great service, it’s more about not making a mistake. Sharp said that simply being easy to find and buy from was a key factor in growing a brand.

Yet brands don’t always make it easy. Forrester found that after the purchase process, more than 80% of B2B buyers end up dissatisfied with their provider of choice.

The way forward: A different sort of differentiation

Too often, brands focus on insignificant differentiators. Marketers need to go back to basics and revisit Trout’s original definition of differentiation.

Look at the AMD versus Intel battle, where minor performance advantages initially served as differentiators. Then Intel launched Intel Inside, a campaign that emphasized its heritage, market leadership, and status as the first company of its kind. The company then dominated for many years.

Next time you’re in a meeting where a colleague is trying to elevate an unimportant feature to differentiate your product or brand, push back. Find something more likely to stand the test of time, even if it takes a little more effort to communicate that differentiation.