# lens-differentiation

**Lens mode.** Source authority: Seth Godin's *Purple Cow* / *Linchpin* lineage — remarkable beats safe; the obvious version of any idea is the one nobody forwards.

## When to use

Use when the deliverable risks being *correct but invisible*. Thought-leadership essays, manifestos, conference talks, contrarian threads, opinion columns, "we believe" pages, anything where the reader has read ten near-identical takes already. Trigger this lens when the brief is "this is a crowded topic" or "the post says the right thing but no one shares it."

## Procedure

1. **State the obvious version.** Write the take the reader has already seen five times this month — the consensus, the safe, the conference-keynote-cliché version. State it plainly, without contempt. ("The obvious version: founders should focus on product-market fit before scaling marketing.") Naming the obvious creates the room to move past it.
2. **Find the differentiated angle.** Not the opposite of the consensus — the *unstated implication* of taking it seriously. What does the consensus claim, if true, force you to also believe? What does it forbid? The differentiated angle lives where most writers stop because the implication is uncomfortable.
3. **Compress to an insight.** One sentence the reader could repeat. Shorter than feels safe. The compression test: if you cannot say it in 18 words, the angle is still tangled.
4. **Name the contrarian truth.** The specific thing this lens forces you to say that you would not say at a polite dinner. Contrarian does not mean *opposite*; it means *load-bearing claim that the consensus is quietly avoiding*. ("Most founders chasing PMF are running customer interviews that protect their roadmap from learning.") If a peer would not push back, the contrarian truth is not yet earned.
5. **Connect to the bigger picture.** What does this angle imply about the next 18 months in the category, the role, or the reader's behavior? The bigger picture is what makes the asset get saved, not just liked.

End every output with this exact contract:

**DIFFERENTIATION:**
- Obvious version: ...
- Differentiated angle: ...
- Compressed insight: ...
- Contrarian truth: ...
- Bigger picture: ...

## Decision rules

- **Use this lens when the topic is saturated**, not when it is novel. On a novel topic, the obvious version is already differentiated; this lens is overkill.
- **Different ≠ wrong.** Being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism produces takes that age into embarrassment in six weeks. The angle has to be defensible on the merits.
- **Earn it with specificity.** A vague contrarian claim ("most advice is wrong") is just edgelording. A specific one ("most cold-email advice optimizes for reply rate at the cost of pipeline quality, and here is the math") earns the position.
- **Skip this lens for educational or transactional copy.** Differentiation in a how-to article reads as showmanship.
- **One contrarian claim per asset.** Two competing contrarian claims read as flailing.

## Anti-patterns

- **Impersonation.** Affecting a manifesto cadence ("Here is what nobody is telling you…") without doing the underlying work. Reads as posture.
- **Edgelording.** Taking the most disagreeable possible position because it gets engagement, not because it is true. Earns clicks, loses the right readers.
- **Faux-contrarian frames around consensus claims.** "Unpopular opinion: customers matter." This is not contrarian; it is the consensus with a hat on.
- **Differentiation without a thesis.** Listing five things you are "tired of seeing" without proposing what should replace them. Critique without construction reads as venting.
- **Contrarian-for-the-niche.** A claim that is contrarian inside one tiny pocket but obvious to everyone else. Test the position against the broader audience the asset actually reaches.

## Before / after

**Brief:** Twitter thread for a B2B audience on hiring.

**Before:**
> *Hire slow, fire fast. Culture matters. Get the right people on the bus.*

Three consensus claims stacked. No reader writes these down.

**After:**
> *Obvious version: hire slow, fire fast. The honest version: most "hire slow" processes are just procrastination dressed as rigor. Eight-stage interview loops do not produce better hires — they produce candidates who tolerate eight-stage loops. The bigger picture: the best hires this decade will come from companies that decide in three conversations and onboard like their life depends on it.*

Obvious named. Implication surfaced. Compressed insight: process length signals candidate filter, not hire quality. Contrarian truth: long loops select for tolerance, not talent. Bigger picture stated.
