(And why that’s not actually a messaging failure)
This often sounds like…
- “Our site reads fine — it just doesn’t feel specific.”
- “We do good work, but it’s hard to explain why us without over-explaining.”
- “People understand what we do, but not why it’s different.”
- “Nothing we say feels wrong — it just doesn’t land.”
You might get polite interest.
Occasional traction.
But very little pull.
And when you try to sharpen the message, it tends to collapse into phrases that could belong to almost anyone in your space.
What this usually gets blamed on
When differentiation feels weak, it’s commonly attributed to:
- Needing better copy
- Not being bold enough
- Playing it too safe
- Missing a strong “hook”
- Failing to articulate a clear USP
Those explanations sound reasonable.
But if this were simply a copy problem, new language would fix it.
And if it were about bravery, confidence would settle it.
Instead, the message keeps reverting to something generic — even after thoughtful work.
What’s actually happening
This isn’t a messaging problem.
It’s a comparative judgment problem.
You don’t lack insight into what makes your work different.
What’s missing is a stable way to translate that difference without you being present to explain it.
So the business defaults to:
- Category language instead of contrast
- Features instead of perspective
- Safe phrases that won’t misrepresent you
Not because you’re unclear —
but because your differentiation lives in how you weigh tradeoffs, not in slogans.
Without a finished articulation of that judgment:
- Messaging gets flattened to avoid overclaiming
- Specificity feels risky
- Everything sounds technically accurate… and interchangeable
This isn’t indecision.
It’s restraint in the absence of a safe container.
Why this costs more than it looks
When differentiation isn’t held clearly, the cost shows up quietly:
- You spend more time explaining than you should
- Prospects compare you on price or convenience
- Good-fit clients hesitate because nothing signals why you
- Marketing requires constant supervision to stay “true enough”
None of this means the work isn’t strong.
It means the distinction hasn’t been finished in a way the business can carry on its own.
Once this is clear, there are usually three reasonable ways people live with it
None are wrong.
Each simply trades one set of costs for another.
Option 1: Maintain the Status Quo (Do Nothing)
This option protects accuracy.
You avoid overstatement.
You stay honest.
You don’t risk saying the wrong thing.
What it costs:
- Time: ongoing explanations and clarification
- Energy: steady effort to compensate for generic messaging
- Attention: monitoring how others interpret your work
- Money: preserved short-term, constrained by weak pull
This option makes sense when:
- Reputation matters more than reach
- You’d rather explain than misrepresent
- The current level of demand is acceptable
Option 2: Try to Fix It Yourself (DIY)
This option protects control.
You experiment with language, frameworks, and positioning until something fits.
What it costs:
- Time: cycles of refinement and revision
- Energy: high — especially when language feels “almost right”
- Attention: constant comparison to competitors
- Money: low spend, high internal cost
DIY often stalls not because of lack of insight —
but because differentiation isn’t discovered, it’s constructed through judgment.
And that’s difficult to do while also running the business.
Option 3: Get Help (Any External Support)
This option introduces an external way to hold comparative judgment.
Not to invent a story —
but to articulate what already distinguishes your work, safely.
What it costs:
- Time: shorter, more focused engagement
- Energy: lower cognitive load, some collaboration required
- Attention: narrowed to what actually matters
- Money: explicit and bounded
This option makes sense when:
- You’re tired of sounding generic by default
- You want specificity without exaggeration
- You want messaging that doesn’t need constant correction
It’s not always the right move — especially if precision feels more important than pull.
Nothing needs to happen next
If this clarified why “better copy” never quite solved it, that’s enough.
You don’t need to sharpen anything.
You don’t need to reposition.
Sometimes understanding why differentiation feels risky is the relief.
You can leave it here.