After covering numerous companies at Trends, I've noticed: people think of competition too narrowly.
This is indicative of not understanding the root problem being solved.
Competition != products w the same features
Competition = anything overlapping w core value provided

-
-
Ex 2: Neflix has fared much better. Why? They understand the complexity of their competition graph. Reed Hastings has astutely noted that it's not just Disney+ or HBO. They also compete with... sleep. Their goal is to get more of your overall entertainment timeshare.
Pokaż ten wątek -
Ex 3: If you're United Airlines, you think your competition is American. Delta. KLM. That's your direct competition. But you're indirectly competing w anything helping ppl mentally/physically "escape". This ranges from RVs to cruises, but also VR, esports.. You get the point.
Pokaż ten wątek -
Ex 4: Universities think they're being disrupted by Lambda School. They are. But they're also disrupted by anything giving young ppl job prospects, like: - Self-learning plats (YT) - Influencer apps (TikTok) - Biz builders (Shopify) - Incubators (YC) - P2P marketplaces (Upwork)
Pokaż ten wątek -
TL;DR If you're building a company, consider the CORE problem you're solving. Not "my company sells X to Y". What are you really helping people do? - Reach financial security? - Entertain themselves? - Save time? Break it down and only then, assess what else achieves that.
Pokaż ten wątek -
PS: This is why, if your product's core offering is organizing information, I can almost guarantee that your top competitor is a spreadsheet.
Pokaż ten wątek
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
Latest project