Our team has lost count of how many social media ads we’ve seen recently that all leverage the same comparative positioning structure, despite showcasing completely different products or services from entirely separate startups. The copy in question?

“It’s like ______ but for X.”

Editor’s Note: The vast majority fill in the blank with Duolingo, so we will be using that as an example throughout this blog; however, we have encountered instances where other tools, such as Canva, were used for the setup.

Comparative Positioning Can Be Counterproductive

We completely understand the rationale behind “It’s Duolingo, but for X.” After all, comparative positioning can be a worthwhile strategy and it’s worked well for many companies. Take Slack, for instance. In its early days, it was touted as “email, but better,” when the team spoke to investors and the media. Although never an official tagline, it is a prime example of how to leverage familiarity to define what makes a product valuable effectively.

The Duolingo comparison attempts to do the same, and it may work for some products. Unfortunately, for most of the brands running those ads, results are going to be disappointing at best and, in some cases, downright detrimental.

Overuse and Lack of Differentiation

“Duolingo for coding.” “Duolingo for fitness.” “Duolingo for investing.”

The list goes on and on. We see it everywhere, which means your potential customers probably do too. If they’ve already come across one ad using that comparison and decided they weren’t interested, they are far less likely to stop for another one that looks or sounds the same. With so many companies using this structure, it’s easy for potential customers to assume they’ve already seen (and dismissed) your product before they’ve even given it a real look.

Weak Value Proposition

Another major flaw in the “It’s like Duolingo, but for X” approach is that it fails to establish value. Instead of alluding to what problem a product solves and why people should care, it leans heavily on the language platform’s name recognition.

Slack’s unofficial catchphrase worked because it positioned the platform as something better than what people were familiar with instead of like something they may have used. The difference in messaging becomes very clear when you put the two structures side by side.

“Email, but better.”

“It’s like email but for instant messages.”

Oversimplification of Slack’s features aside, you likely get the point: If the biggest (or only) selling point is that it is like another successful product, why would anyone want it?

Surface-Level Comparison

If a customer is intrigued enough to check out a product based on this comparison, they will do so with certain expectations. Duolingo’s success lies in gamification, and while many things can be gamified, not all lend themselves to the same structure.

The platform incentivises consistency to encourage habit-forming and caters to a variety of learning styles in the process. Unless your product actually delivers on those expectations, the comparison falls apart quickly. Instead of making a brand seem more appealing, it just highlights what’s missing.

It’s also worth noting that while many people know Duolingo, not everyone may love it. If someone in your target audience isn’t a fan and you’re selling your product solely on its similarities, they are not going to become your next customer.

Free Promotion for Someone Else

If the VP of Marketing at a very established, successful and well-resourced company came up to you and said, “Hello, I would like you to use your advertising budget to promote our product. We won’t be reimbursing you or returning the favor,” you’d probably look at them like they have three heads.

Why on earth would you spend your very tight budget on helping them expand their already far-reaching brand? You wouldn’t. Except that’s exactly what will happen if you rely on their name recognition to sell your product.

Want an advertising strategy that works?

Instead of relying on another company’s success to define yours, your marketing should make it immediately clear what sets you apart. If you’re struggling to refine your messaging and position your brand in a way that actually works, let’s talk.

What is comparative positioning in marketing?

Comparative positioning is a messaging strategy that explains a product or service by comparing it to something the audience already understands. When used well, it can create fast recognition and reduce the amount of explanation needed. However, the comparison needs to clarify value, not replace it. If the audience only understands what the product resembles, but not why it is useful or different, the positioning is incomplete.

Why do brands use “It’s like X, but for X” in advertising?

Brands use this structure to associate their product with one that is widely recognized. The comparison is meant to help audiences quickly understand the product category or user experience. The problem is that the phrase has become so overused that it often blends in with similar ads instead of helping a brand stand out.

When does comparative positioning work?

Comparative positioning works when the reference point makes the product easier to understand and highlights a meaningful improvement. For example, a comparison can be effective when it shows that a product is faster, simpler, more accessible, more specialized or better suited to a specific audience than the familiar alternative. The strongest comparisons make the value proposition clearer, not more dependent on another company’s brand recognition.

Why can “It’s like X, but for X” weaken a value proposition?

The phrase can weaken a value proposition because it focuses attention on the comparison rather than the customer problem, product benefit or differentiator. If the message does not explain what the product helps users do, why it matters or why it is better than existing options, the audience is left with a surface-level analogy. That may generate brief curiosity, but it rarely creates strong purchase intent.

What are the risks of using another company’s brand in your advertising?

Using another company’s brand in your advertising can unintentionally promote that company instead of your own. It can also transfer audience perceptions you do not control. If someone dislikes the referenced brand, misunderstands the comparison or has expectations your product does not meet, the positioning can work against you.

How can companies avoid overused positioning in their ads?

Companies can avoid overused positioning by starting with their actual audience, problem and differentiator rather than a familiar brand comparison. A stronger message should answer what the product does, who it is for, what problem it solves and why it is meaningfully different. Familiarity can help, but it should support the positioning instead of carrying the entire message.

What should a strong value proposition include?

A strong value proposition should clearly identify the audience, the problem being solved, the benefit delivered and the reason the product is different from other options. It should help potential customers understand why they should care quickly. The best value propositions are specific enough to create relevance and clear enough to be understood without additional explanation.

Is it always a mistake to compare your product to a well-known brand?

No. Comparing your product to another that is well-known can be effective when the comparison is accurate, differentiated and tied to a clear benefit. The mistake is relying on another brand’s name recognition alone. If the comparison creates confusion, raises expectations the product cannot meet or makes the brand sound interchangeable with competitors, it is likely doing more harm than good.

How do you know if your positioning is too generic?

Your positioning may be too generic if competitors could use the same language without changing much, if the message depends heavily on another company’s brand or if it does not make the customer benefit immediately clear. Another warning sign is when the copy explains what the product is “like” but not what makes it valuable, credible or relevant to the target audience.