I remember the first time I presented this statement in a branding workshop.
It was 2007. Client: regional bank wanting to “compete with Itaú and Bradesco” (Brazil’s largest banks). The CEO looked at me like I’d said something absurd and asked:
“But… if we don’t go after everyone, we’ll never grow, right?”
Wrong.
Seventeen years later, that regional bank still exists. So do Itaú and Bradesco. And the difference between them isn’t size. It’s clarity.
THE MYTH OF UNIVERSALITY
The temptation to be “for everyone” is understandable.
It seems logical: more people = more customers = more revenue.
The problem is that “for everyone” means “for no one in particular.”
And in the saturated world of 2026, where consumers are bombarded with 5,000 brand messages per day, “for no one in particular” = invisible.
Look what happens when brands try to be universal:
Generic communication:
“We’re innovative, customer-focused, delivering excellence.”
Does this describe your company?
Probably.
Does it describe your 50 competitors?
Definitely.
Impossible trade-offs:
You can’t be premium and cheap.
Can’t be fast and artisanal.
Can’t be for young people and for retirees.
Trying both doesn’t position you in the middle.
It positions you nowhere.
WHAT “EVERYTHING TO SOMEONE” MEANS
I’m not talking about niche for niche’s sake.
I’m talking about clarity on who you serve so well that no one else can compete.
Three brands that got this:
- PATAGONIA — ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHO BUY CLOTHES
Patagonia could sell jackets “for outdoor enthusiasts.”
But it doesn’t.
It sells to people who believe consuming less is better than consuming more. So much so it ran a “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign on Black Friday.
Result:
- Did it lose customers who just wanted “a good jacket”?
Yes. - Did it gain fanatics who tattoo the logo?
Also yes.
Revenue: $3 billion/year.
Margin: 30%+ (vs 10-15% fast fashion competitors).
Patagonia isn’t for “everyone who needs a jacket.”
It’s everything to those who believe clothes should last 20 years and companies should save the planet.
- TESLA — EARLY ADOPTERS WHO WANT THE FUTURE NOW
Tesla didn’t try to sell electric cars “for everyone” from the start.
It began with the Roadster at $109,000 for early adopters willing to pay for status + technology.
Only later (10 years) came Model 3 ($40k).
If it had started with “affordable electric car for masses” in 2008:
- Wouldn’t have margin to invest in Superchargers
- Wouldn’t have money to develop FSD
- Wouldn’t have survived
Tesla today is worth $800 billion because it was everything to someone (tech enthusiasts) before being something to many.
- NUBANK — MILLENNIALS WHO HATE BANKS
The Brazilian fintech Nubank could have launched “digital bank for everyone.”
But it started with a purple card for urban 25-35 year-olds who never got credit because traditional scoring excluded them.
Communication: shocking purple, informal language, app without branch managers.
Did this repel baby boomers?
Completely.
But it captured 90 million users in 10 years.
Today Nubank is becoming “for more people.” But it only could because first it was everything to someone specific.
THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DEFINE “EVERYTHING TO SOMEONE”
If you want to position clarity, answer with brutal honesty:
- WHO AM I NOT FOR?
If your answer is “we’re for everyone” → you have no positioning.
Examples:
- Rolex isn’t for those who want “just a functional watch”
- Ryanair isn’t for those who want comfort
- Whole Foods isn’t for those who want low prices
Defining who you’re NOT FOR is more strategic than defining who you are for.
- WHAT TRADE-OFF AM I MAKING?
Positioning is choice. And choice means giving something up.
Tesla chose:
Performance and technology > affordable price (first 10 years)
Southwest Airlines chose:
Low price and frequency > comfort and business class
In-N-Out Burger chose:
Tight menu (3 items) and quality > variety
If you’re not giving anything up, you’re trying to be everything to everyone.
And you’ll lose to those who made clear choices.
- WHAT DO I DO BETTER THAN ANYONE — FOR THAT SOMEONE?
Choosing an audience isn’t enough.
You need to be irreplaceable to them.
Ferrari is irreplaceable for those wanting “extreme performance + Italian exclusivity.”
It’s not irreplaceable for those wanting “a good sports car.”
Hermès is irreplaceable for those wanting “centuries-old luxury craftsmanship + 2-year waiting list” (yes, that’s positioning).
It’s not irreplaceable for those wanting “quality leather bag.”
The question isn’t:
“Are we good?”
The question is:
“For whom are we the ONLY possible choice?”
THE PARADOX: THE MORE SPECIFIC, THE BIGGER THE MARKET
Seems counter-intuitive.
But the world’s most valuable brands started hyper-specific:
- Google: “search for Stanford nerds” → today 90% global search market share
- Amazon: “online books for early adopters” → today everything store
- Netflix: “mail-order DVDs for cinephiles” → today 260 million subscribers
They didn’t start trying to be for everyone.
They started being EVERYTHING to someone.
And then (only then) they expanded.
CONCLUSION: COURAGE TO CHOOSE
Positioning isn’t a marketing exercise.
It’s courage to say no:
- No to 90% of opportunities.
- No to customers who “almost” fit.
- No to channels that “everyone uses.”
Because in the end:
Brands that try to please everyone please no one.
Brands that deeply please someone become irreplaceable.
And irreplaceable doesn’t compete on price.
Irreplaceable creates categories.
Do you know who your brand is like?
Or are you still trying to be something to everyone?
Deep dive on strategic positioning: BrandingLeaks (2025)
