Matt Lane · Notes← All notes
2025-01-16 · Products & systems

Differentiation Strategy

Over time, our product’s competitive set will emerge in the form of the attributes that define what our product is more and less about and whether the product is in or out of the competitive set when a “hiring” moment arises. For example: Snickers can’t take a feature request to be “more melty” and then win over some new customers. Milky Way can’t “add a little crunch” to hit two birds with one stone. These are trade-offs. The trade-offs are both what makes them different, what defines their competitive sets, and what makes them suitable for various situations (Snickers is competing with an energy bar, an apple, or Diet Coke and is reached for when we are on the go, when we missed a meal, and Milky Way is competing with a glass of red wine or ice cream and we reach for it after an emotional event when we need a boost and want to take our time chewing away).

When we know our position, we can say “no.” When we don’t know, we say “yes” out of fear.

We might call this artifact, which is informed by framing (context, how the current way breaks, and the effect), the strategy canvas (the product’s blue ocean strategy (see example images below)). We move beyond the concept of markets or customers/personas and toward situational market segments. Knowing “when” becomes more interesting and valuable than knowing “who.” Understanding the context of the motivation is more important than the persona.

It’s all about having conviction no matter how choppy the waters are and how foggy the path appears.

Avoid defining the “product category”, as that’s outsourcing your strategy to the past.

Also, included is a clip about tradeoffs with Bezos. [https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2FTDJC_uJshITjWyXCf4GiOqALxoGa8k?si=UPodcqFKtxllX6Bh](https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2FTDJC_uJshITjWyXCf4GiOqALxoGa8k?si=UPodcqFKtxllX6Bh)

5. The Solution Changes, But the Job Remains the Same

Discussion

**Differentiation Strategy**

**Key Idea:** A product or solution becomes defined by the *trade-offs* it makes—what it’s “more about” and “less about.” These trade-offs determine the competitive set and when the product is hired or not hired in real-life usage contexts. By clarifying your position, you gain the conviction to say “no” to requests or expansions that dilute your core.

- **Decomposition:**

- Breaks down the *attributes* of your product (and competing products) into distinct “more about / less about” pairs.
- Identifies specific *situations* or *contexts* (e.g., “on-the-go hunger” vs. “post-emotional pick-me-up”) that each trade-off addresses.
- **Abstraction:**

- Shifts the focus from static personas or “market categories” to higher-level “hiring contexts” (the *why/when* rather than the who).
- Views each attribute in conceptual terms (e.g., “crunchy” vs. “melty,” “async” vs. “collaborative”) rather than detailed features.
- **Pattern Recognition:**

- Mapping your product to a *strategy canvas* (like a Blue Ocean Strategy diagram) reveals recurring trade-offs across different market segments.
- Identifies the *common threads* that explain which contexts drive usage and which contexts lead users to alternative solutions.
- **Algorithm/Procedure:**

- Involves a **decision rule**—if a proposed feature request conflicts with your “more/less” definition, you *say no*.
- Guides continuous refinement of your product’s “job to be done” so you can keep aligning with the right user contexts (much like Snickers focusing on “meal replacement” or Milky Way leaning into “indulgent treat”).