Comparison
Competitive intelligence: risky exchanges vs lawful research
A comparison of the competitive intelligence patterns that come close to Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the first-party research that stays well clear of it. The risky side covers asking a competitor what it charged, peer groups comparing numbers, shared vendors pooling nonpublic prices and requests for a rival's documents. The lawful side covers asking your own customers and prospects why they chose, what they compared and what would make them switch. Background only, not legal advice.
Where this appears
What's in this comparison
Risky: exchanges with competitors
- Asking a competitor what it quoted a specific customer
- Peer groups where competitors compare current numbers
- A shared vendor or tool pooling nonpublic prices
- Asking a customer to send a rival's quote or contract
Lawful: first-party research
- Asking customers why they chose someone else
- What they compared and how they judged the value
- What they think a fair price is
- What would make them switch
Use this image
Free to use in your docs, decks and posts under CC BY 4.0, as long as you credit Koji with a link to this page. To embed it, paste this into your page:
html
<a href="https://www.koji.so/visuals/competitive-intelligence-lawful-vs-risky-research"><img src="https://www.koji.so/visuals/competitive-intelligence-lawful-vs-risky-research/competitive-intelligence-lawful-vs-risky-research.png" alt="Comparison of risky competitive intelligence, like asking a rival what it quoted, against lawful first-party research, like asking customers why they chose." width="1200" height="722" /></a>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.koji.so/visuals/competitive-intelligence-lawful-vs-risky-research">Competitive intelligence: risky exchanges vs lawful research</a>, Koji</p>
