Blog
I let the topic analysis feature of Discussit run over the copywriting of an upcoming new GPR product for concrete scanning. (As I told John Davenport yesterday, competitive marketing analysis is IMO one of Discussit’s use cases.)
The topic analysis reveals the following overarching topic structure (paraphrased for effect):
- It’s comprehensive.
- Also, new satellite antennas.
- Look, it’s the most complete.
- Did we mention the new antennas?
- Trust us, it’s the most comprehensive.
- Here are the two antennas.
My expert opinion: most of the many features mentioned are neither novel nor differentiating, except for two features, one hardware-enabled, and one software-enabled.
Yet both are hidden within a bunch of other boring stuff, like batteries (yawn!) and wireless connectivity (welcome to 2017!), and only visualized in the brochure!
Also, the “satellite antennas” are, as I understand it, still not standalone units. Why? A standalone wireless GPR in a sub-10x10x10-cm bounding box has been possible since 2019.
Verdict:
- respect; this is an incumbent finally trying to escape from The Cave of their own making (good for the market and for the customers!), and
- disappointment; this incumbent can’t even focus on not one, but two announced features that could impact UX in novel and potentially valuable ways.
What do I mean by “The Cave”? This 👉 The Cave
Quote from the book:
“Incumbents over time find themselves deep in the Cave, rarely if ever surfacing; the guards are also prisoners, in their own way. After all, it’s a tough proposition to be an effective guard putting up lavish processions for the prisoners without eventually treating the shadows you yourself cast as being real.”
Is your product deeply technological and its marketing undeservedly, equally so? Want to escape your own incumbent Cave or help others escape your incumbent competitor’s Cave?
