Same Old Attributes

Competing on the same old attributes is a recipe for insignificance.

Company 1: - "Our ice cream is made from natural ingredients"

Company 2: - "Our ice cream is made from pure ingredients"

Company 3: - "Our ice cream is made from organic ingredients"

You think you're saying something, but all the buyer hears is noise.

Instead, find a unique attribute that you can own.

Company 4: - "We're quirky and cause-focused" (Ben & Jerries)

Questions to consider: Are you competing on the same old attributes? Or something unique?

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do phrases like "natural," "pure," and "organic" all sound like noise to buyers?

Because they're variations on the same generic claim, even though the words differ, the underlying message is functionally identical, making all three companies sound interchangeable rather than distinct.

What's the actual risk of competing on these same old attributes?

Insignificance. When multiple companies all claim similar-sounding qualities, none of them stand out, and buyers stop distinguishing between them entirely, treating the claims as background noise.

What does it mean to "own a unique attribute" instead?

Claiming something genuinely distinct that competitors aren't also saying, an attribute specific enough that it becomes associated primarily with one brand rather than blending into a chorus of similar claims.

How does Ben & Jerry's "quirky and cause-focused" positioning illustrate this?

By claiming an attribute entirely outside the typical "natural, pure, organic" competition, Ben & Jerry's created a distinct identity that stands apart from ingredient-focused messaging most other ice cream brands were all making.

What are the practical questions worth reflecting on here?

Whether current positioning competes on the same old, commonly claimed attributes, or whether it's built around something genuinely unique that the business can actually own in the buyer's mind.